Groeiend kwaad, al slapend zien we niet wat er werkelijk gebeurt, ofwel The Matrix in afgezwakte vorm

Tyler
Durden heeft op Zero Hedge een artikel geplaatst van John Whitehead,
eerder gepubliceerd op de site van The Rutherford Institute.

In het
artikel schrijft Whitehead over de films van John Carpenter, waar hij
zijn schrijven m.n. baseert op de film ‘They Live’, een film van meer dan
30 jaar geleden. Hoewel 30 jaar oud, ziet Whitehead in de film
opvallende overeenkomsten met de huidige politiestaat die men VS
pleegt te noemen. Met gebruik van media als de tv prent men de bevolking zaken in als gehoorzaam te zijn en bang te zijn, dit door boodschappen die je normaal niet ziet, maar die de hoofdpersoon met een speciale bril wel kan zien. Voorts heeft de tv dan ook nog het effect op mensen hun zorgen even opzij te zetten, iets dat zonder meer gebeurt met de argeloze kijker….

Men jaagt de mens angst aan voor ‘het onbekende’, ofwel voor bijvoorbeeld terroristen in een ver land, aanvallen op publiek door éénlingen, of zelfs angst voor buren die men niet kent. Alles gevoed met series, films en programma’s over daadwerkelijke misdaad, zoals Opsporing Verzocht (fopsnorren verkocht*). Let wel het gaat hier om de bevolking van de VS, de manier waarop de maatschappij daar is ingericht en hoe de reguliere massamedia worden beheerst door plutocraten en grote investeringsmaatschappijen, hoe Hollywood middels films en series het volk angst aanjaagt middels wat je niet anders kan zien dan een vorm van hersenspoelen….. 

De VS is maar al te vaak het slachtoffer in deze films en series, terwijl de VS een paar keer is aangevallen: Pearl Harbour, in feite niet behorend tot de VS en een aanval die voorkomen had kunnen worden, maar die men expres liet gebeuren zodat de VS zich in WOII kon mengen….. Verder uiteraard 9/11, waarvan intussen meer dan duidelijk is dat deze terroristische aanslagen werden georganiseerd en geregisseerd door de VS zelf…. Niet moeilijk te bedenken dat we in Nederland en de rest van het westen dezelfde kant opgaan, zie alleen al al het fake news en manipulaties in onze reguliere media, voorafgaand en tijdens de illegale oorlogen die de VS deze eeuw begon, waarbij meer dan 2,5 miljoen mensen zijn omgekomen, ofwel feitelijk vermoord door de VS en haar hielenlikkende NAVO-partners, waaronder Nederland (en ja daar betalen we met z’n allen aan mee…)…..

Hoe is het mogelijk dat er zoveel films en series zijn die zogenaamd aantonen dat het westen slachtoffer is van terreur en het onbekende, zodat het terecht lijkt dat het westen met grootschalige terreur ingrijpt in landen waar we niets, maar dan ook helemaal niets te zoeken hebben…??? De werkelijkheid is volkomen omgedraaid, de VS en haar NAVO-partners gebruiken grootschalige terreur in het Midden-Oosten, Afrika en Latijns-Amerika (sinds kort ook met NAVO troepen uit Europa), deze terreur roept logischerwijs agressie op bij de nabestaanden van het enorme aantal slachtoffers…  Hoe meer van deze films en series vertoond worden, hoe meer de mens angst krijgt voor het bestaan en achter de ongebreidelde westerse agressie gaat staan, terwijl geen hond nog ziet dat de terreur die we zelf uitoefenen van een grootte is, waarbij aanslagen in het westen in het niet vallen…… Gevolg van die westerse terreur: het kweken van aanslagen in het westen en enorme vluchtelingenstromen (waar dan schunnig genoeg zelfs angst wordt gekweekt voor die vluchtelingen)…… 

Kortom we laten ons leven en beseffen niet dat e.e.a. zich voltrekt over ons bestaan, we dromen vrij te zijn, maar zijn dat in werkelijkheid allesbehalve…..

Carpenter
is in zijn films altijd sterk anti-autoritair en hij laat de kijker
zien hoe de mens in feite slaapt terwijl onzichtbare machten zich het leven van de slapenden toe-eigenen, dit geldt des te meer voor de
film ‘They Live’.

Vanmorgen hoorde ik dat een geschifte generaal het internet van Nederland wil bewaken, lees: zuiveren van kritiek, waarvoor hij dan het sprookje aanhaalt dat ‘men’ (lees: Rusland) ons manipuleert via de sociale media….. Als iets dergelijks doorgang zou vinden, kunnen we het laatste restje echt objectieve journalistiek vaarwel zeggen en worden we alleen nog volgepropt met neoliberale leugens…….

Lees het volgende uitstekende artikel en de rillingen zullen je over de rug lopen (ach ja, het is het hele jaar Halloween):

They
Live, We Sleep: Beware The Growing Evil In Our Midst

by Tyler
Durden

Wed,
10/30/2019 – 00:05

Authored
by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

You
see them on the street. You watch them on TV.
 You
might even vote for one this fall. 
You
think they’re people just like you. 
You’re
wrong.
 Dead
wrong.”


They Live

We’re
living in two worlds, you and I.

There’s
the world we see (or are made to see) and then there’s the one we
sense (and occasionally catch a glimpse of), the latter of which is a
far cry from the propaganda-driven reality manufactured by the
government and its corporate sponsors, including the media.

Indeed,
what most Americans perceive as life in America—privileged,
progressive and free—is a far cry from reality,
 where
economic inequality is growing, real agendas and real power are
buried beneath layers of Orwellian doublespeak and corporate
obfuscation, and “freedom,” such that it is, is meted out in
small, legalistic doses by militarized police armed to the teeth.

All
is not as it seems.

This
is the premise of 
John
Carpenter’s film 
They
Live
,
which was released more than 30 years ago, and remains unnervingly,
chillingly appropriate for our modern age.

Best
known for his horror film 
Halloween,
which assumes that there is a form of evil so dark that it can’t be
killed, Carpenter’s larger body of work is infused with a strong
anti-authoritarian, anti-establishment, laconic bent that speaks to
the filmmaker’s concerns about the unraveling of our society,
particularly our government.

Time
and again, Carpenter portrays the government working against its own
citizens, 
a
populace out of touch with reality
,
technology run amok, and a future more horrific than any horror film.


In Escape
from New York
,
Carpenter presents fascism as the future of America.


In The
Thing
, a
remake of the 1951 sci-fi classic of the same name, Carpenter
presupposes that increasingly we are all becoming dehumanized.


In Christine,
the film adaptation of Stephen King’s novel about a demon-possessed
car, technology exhibits a will and consciousness of its own and goes
on a murderous rampage.


In In
the Mouth of Madness
,
Carpenter notes that evil grows when people lose “the ability to
know the difference between reality and fantasy.”


And
then there is Carpenter’s 
They
Live
,
in which two migrant workers discover that the world is not as it
seems. In fact, the population is actually being controlled and
exploited by aliens working in partnership with an oligarchic elite.
All the while, the populace—blissfully unaware of the real agenda
at work in their lives—has been lulled into complacency,
indoctrinated into compliance, bombarded with media distractions, and
hypnotized by subliminal messages beamed out of television and
various electronic devices, billboards and the like.


It
is only when homeless drifter John Nada (played to the hilt by
the 
late
Roddy Piper
)
discovers a pair of doctored sunglasses—Hoffman lenses—that Nada
sees what lies beneath the elite’s fabricated reality: control and
bondage.


When
viewed through the lens of truth, the elite, who appear human until
stripped of their disguises, are shown to be monsters who have
enslaved the citizenry in order to prey on them.


Likewise, billboards
blare out hidden, authoritative messages
:
a bikini-clad woman in one ad is actually ordering viewers to “MARRY
AND REPRODUCE.” Magazine racks scream “CONSUME” and “OBEY.”
A wad of dollar bills in a vendor’s hand proclaims, “THIS IS YOUR
GOD.”


When
viewed through Nada’s Hoffman lenses, some of the other hidden
messages being drummed into the people’s subconscious include: NO
INDEPENDENT THOUGHT, CONFORM, SUBMIT, STAY ASLEEP, BUY, WATCH TV, NO
IMAGINATION, and DO NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY.

This
indoctrination campaign engineered by the elite in 
They
Live
 is
painfully familiar to anyone who has studied the decline of American
culture.


A
citizenry that does not think for themselves, obeys without question,
is submissive, does not challenge authority, does not think outside
the box, and is content to sit back and be entertained is a citizenry
that can be easily controlled.

In
this way, the subtle message of 
They
Live
 provides
an apt analogy of our own distorted vision of life in the American
police state, what philosopher Slavoj Žižek refers to
as 
dictatorship
in democracy
,
“the invisible order which sustains your apparent freedom.”


We’re
being fed a series of carefully contrived fictions that bear no
resemblance to reality.

The
powers-that-be want us to feel threatened by forces beyond our
control (terrorists, 
shootersbombers).



They
want us afraid and dependent on the government and its militarized
armies for our safety and well-being.



They
want us distrustful of each other, divided by our prejudices, and at
each other’s throats.



Most
of all, they want us to continue to march in lockstep with their
dictates.


Tune
out the government’s attempts to distract, divert and befuddle us
and tune into what’s really going on in this country, and you’ll
run headlong into an unmistakable, unpalatable truth: the moneyed
elite who rule us view us as expendable resources to be used, abused
and discarded.

In
fact, a study conducted by Princeton and Northwestern University
concluded that the 
U.S.
government does not represent the majority of American citizens
.
Instead, the study found that the government is ruled by the rich and
powerful, or the so-called “economic elite.”
 Moreover,
the researchers concluded that policies enacted by this governmental
elite nearly always favor special interests and lobbying groups.


In
other words, we are being 
ruled
by an oligarchy
 disguised
as a democracy, and arguably on our way towards fascism—a form of
government where private corporate interests rule, money calls the
shots, and the people are seen as mere subjects to be controlled.


Not
only do you have to be rich—or beholden to the rich—to get
elected these days, but 
getting
elected is also a surefire way to get rich
.
As 
CBS
News
 reports,
“Once in office, members of Congress enjoy access to connections
and information they can use to increase their wealth, in ways that
are unparalleled in the private sector. And once politicians leave
office, their connections allow them to profit even further.”


In
denouncing this blatant corruption of America’s political system,
former president Jimmy Carter blasted the process of getting
elected—to the White House, governor’s mansion, Congress or state
legislatures—as “
unlimited
political bribery

a subversion of our political system as a payoff to major
contributors, who want and expect, and sometimes get, favors for
themselves after the election is over.”


Rest
assured that when and if fascism finally takes hold in America, the
basic forms of government will remain: Fascism will appear to be
friendly. 
The
legislators will be in session. 

There will be elections, and the news
media will continue to cover the entertainment and political trivia.
Consent of the governed, however, will no longer apply. Actual
control will have finally passed to the oligarchic elite controlling
the government behind the scenes.

Sound
familiar?

Clearly,
we are now ruled by an oligarchic elite of governmental and corporate
interests.

We
have moved into “corporatism” (
favored
by Benito Mussolini
),
which is a halfway point on the road to full-blown fascism.


Corporatism
is where the few moneyed interests—not elected by the
citizenry—rule over the many. In this way, it is not a democracy or
a republican form of government, which is what the American
government was established to be. It is a top-down form of government
and one which has a terrifying history typified by the developments
that occurred in totalitarian regimes of the past: police states
where everyone is watched and spied on, rounded up for minor
infractions by government agents, placed under police control, and
placed in detention (a.k.a. concentration) camps.

For
the final hammer of fascism to fall, it will require the most crucial
ingredient: the majority of the people will have to agree that it’s
not only expedient but necessary.

But
why would a people agree to such an oppressive regime?


The
answer is the same in every age: fear.


Fear
makes people stupid
.


Fear
is the method most often used by politicians to increase the power of
government. And, as most social commentators recognize, an atmosphere
of fear permeates modern America: fear of terrorism, fear of the
police, fear of our neighbors and so on.

The
propaganda of fear has been used quite effectively by those who want
to gain control, and it is working on the American populace.

Despite
the fact that we are 17,600 times more likely to die from heart
disease than from a terrorist attack; 11,000 times more likely to die
from an airplane accident than from a terrorist plot involving an
airplane; 1,048 times more likely to die from a car accident than a
terrorist attack, and 
8
times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a
terrorist
 ,
we have handed over control of our lives to government officials who
treat us as a means to an end—the source of money and power.


As
the Bearded Man in 
They
Live
 warns, “They
are dismantling the sleeping middle class. 

More and more people are
becoming poor. We are their cattle. We are being bred for slavery.”


In
this regard, we’re not so different from the oppressed citizens
in 
They
Live
.


From
the moment we are born until we die, we are indoctrinated into
believing that those who rule us do it for our own good. The truth is
far different.

Despite
the truth staring us in the face, we have allowed ourselves to become
fearful, controlled, pacified zombies.

We
live in a perpetual state of denial, insulated from the painful
reality of the American police state by wall-to-wall entertainment
news and screen devices.


Most
everyone keeps their heads down these days while staring zombie-like
into an electronic screen, even when they’re crossing the street.
Families sit in restaurants with their heads down, separated by their
screen devices and unaware of what’s going on around them. Young
people especially seem dominated by the devices they hold in their
hands, oblivious to the fact that they can simply push a button, turn
the thing off and walk away.

Indeed,
there is no larger group activity than that connected with those who
watch screens—that is, television, lap tops, personal computers,
cell phones and so on. In fact, a Nielsen study reports that American
screen viewing is at an all-time high. For example, the 
average
American watches approximately 151 hours of television per month
.



The
question, of course, is what effect does such screen consumption have
on one’s mind?


Psychologically
it is 
similar
to drug addiction
.
Researchers found that “almost immediately after turning on the
TV, 
subjects
reported feeling more relaxed
,
and because this occurs so quickly and the tension returns so rapidly
after the TV is turned off, people are conditioned to associate TV
viewing with a lack of tension.” Research also shows that
regardless of the programming, viewers’ brain waves slow down, thus
transforming them into a more passive, nonresistant state.


Historically,
television has been used by those in authority to quiet discontent
and pacify disruptive people. “Faced with severe overcrowding and
limited budgets for rehabilitation and counseling, 
more
and more prison officials are using TV to keep inmates quiet
,”
according to 
Newsweek.


Given
that the majority of what Americans watch on television is provided
through 
channels
controlled by six mega corporations
,
what we watch is now controlled by a corporate elite and, if that
elite needs to foster a particular viewpoint or pacify its viewers,
it can do so on a large scale.

If
we’re watching, we’re not doing.


The
powers-that-be understand this. As television journalist Edward R.
Murrow warned in a 1958 speech:

We
are currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent
.
We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing
information. Our mass media reflect this.
 But
unless we get up off our fat surpluses and recognize that television
in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate
us, then television and those who finance it, those who look at it,
and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too
late.

This
brings me back to 
They
Live
,
in which the real zombies are not the aliens calling the shots but
the populace who are content to remain controlled.


When
all is said and done, the world of 
They
Live 
is
not so different from our own. As one of the characters points out,
“The poor and the underclass are growing. Racial justice and human
rights are nonexistent. They have created a repressive society and we
are their unwitting accomplices. 

Their intention to rule rests with
the annihilation of consciousness. We have been lulled into a trance.
They have made us indifferent to ourselves, to others. We are focused
only on our own gain.”


We,
too, are focused only on our own pleasures, prejudices and gains. Our
poor and underclasses are also growing. Racial injustice is growing.
Human rights is nearly nonexistent. We too have been lulled into a
trance, indifferent to others.

Oblivious
to what lies ahead, we’ve been manipulated into believing that if
we continue to consume, obey, and have faith, things will work out.
But that’s never been true of emerging regimes. And by the time we
feel the hammer coming down upon us, it will be too late.


So
where does that leave us?

The
characters who populate Carpenter’s films provide some insight.

Underneath
their machismo, they still believe in the ideals of liberty and equal
opportunity. Their beliefs place them in constant opposition with the
law and the establishment, but they are nonetheless freedom fighters.

When,
for example, John Nada destroys the alien hyno-transmitter in 
They
Live
,
he restores hope by delivering America a wake-up call for freedom.

That’s
the key right there: 
we
need to wake up.


Stop
allowing yourselves to be easily distracted by pointless political
spectacles and pay attention to what’s really going on in the
country.

The
real battle for control of this nation is not being waged between
Republicans and Democrats in the ballot box.

As
I make clear in my book 
Battlefield
America: The War on the American People
the
real battle for control of this nation is taking place on roadsides,
in police cars, on witness stands, over phone lines, in government
offices, in corporate offices, in public school hallways and
classrooms, in parks and city council meetings, and in towns and
cities across this country.


The
real battle between freedom and tyranny is taking place right in
front of our eyes, if we would only open them.

All
the trappings of the American police state are now in plain sight.

Wake
up, America.


If
they live (the tyrants, the oppressors, the invaders, the overlords),
it is only because “we the people” sleep.

Tag:
Politics

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

* Uitspraak van en met dank aan Dave de Borst.

‘Fake News’ hysterie willens en wetens gelanceerd om sociale media tot zwijgen te brengen, Rusland te demoniseren en daarmee de waarheid te verbergen……..

‘Wat je niet verteld wordt over fake news en Russische propaganda’, zo luidt de titel boven een artikel van Clive Murphy op de ‘The Mind Unleashed’.

In dit artikel o.a. aandacht voor journalist Sharyl Attkisson, die zich afvroeg of ‘fake news’ (nepnieuws in de labels direct onder dit bericht) echt is, of zelf een gefabriceerde term is. Ofwel of ‘fake news’ een vehikel is waarmee men terechte kritiek op de berichtgeving van de reguliere (massa-) media en het brengen van artikelen ‘met een iets andere kijk op de waarheid’ (ofwel veelal waarachtig nieuws), als niet ter zake doend en als onzin afschildert……

Zoals de regelmatige lezer van dit blog weet, ben ik overtuigd van het laatste: de term ‘fake news’ is verzonnen om sociale media, die de waarheid blootleggen, de mond te snoeren……

Lees en oordeel zelf:

What
You’re Not Being Told About Fake News and Russian Propaganda

February
19, 2018 at 7:03 am

Written
by 
The
Mind Unleashed

(TMU) — “Is
‘fake news’ real?”
 asked
investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson during a 
Tedx
talk
 this
month — posing the paradoxical question in the context of its
explosion in popularity during the 2016 presidential election — or
is the term, 
fake
news
,
itself, a fabrication?

In
its absurd extreme, identifiably fake news appears on supermarket
shelves as tabloid magazines, in ‘reports’ on human births of
alien hybrid babies and other blatant fabrications; while its more
pernicious iteration, issued by traditional pillars of journalism —
such as the New York Times and Washington
Post
, among many others — manifests in reports citing
unsubstantiated sources and unnamed ‘officials,’ and often favors
corporate sponsors as well as the political establishment.

Fake
news
 isn’t new to the media landscape, in other words, but
the catchphrase, as a descriptor, is.

Thus,
what if fake news — peddled to the public as a pressing problem in
need of solution — is itself a deception,
intentionally constructed to silence legitimate critique, opposing
viewpoints, and dissent?

Attkisson,
who surmised the abrupt entrée of an artificial problem must have
had assistance, investigated the origins of the phrase, ‘fake
news,’ and its employment as accusation and insinuation, whether or
not accompanied by substantiating evidence. And she was frighteningly
on point.

What
if the whole anti-fake news campaign was an effort on somebody’s
part to keep us from seeing or believing certain websites and stories
by controversializing them or labeling them as fake news?”
 the
seasoned journalist and winner of the Edward R. Murrow award for
investigative reporting asks.

Weighing
the evidence, timeline, and money trail Attkisson discovered —
coupled with the resulting heavy-handed crackdown on social media and
video-sharing platforms, as well as by search engines and
advertisers, on the fictitious false information crisis — not only
does it seem likely the term was premeditated and unleashed as a
propaganda device, but as a loaded weapon inherently threatening to
the future of the free press as protectively enshrined in the First
Amendment.

With
decades of experience, Attkisson’s hunch — that the specific term
‘fake news’ did not spread like acrid wildfire of its own
volition — found factual corroboration.

In
mid-September 2016, the nonprofit group, First Draft — funded in
part, 
according
to
 an
archive of the site, by grants from the “
John
S. and James L. Knight Foundation, 
Open
Society Foundation
 and
the Ford Foundation”
 —
announced its mission “
to
tackle malicious hoaxes and fake news reports.”

First
Draft — a project of the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and
Public Policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of
Government — uses research-based methods to fight mis- and
disinformation online. Additionally, it provides practical and
ethical guidance in how to find, verify and publish content sourced
from the social web,”
 the
site’s About section 
states.

The
goal was supposedly to separate wheat from chaff,”
 Attkisson
explains, “to
prevent unproven conspiracy talk from figuring prominently in
internet searches. To relegate today’s version of the alien baby
story to a special internet oblivion.”

However
innocuous-sounding that agenda, just one month passed before First
Draft’s battle against fake news found a megaphone in the
president, as Obama abruptly “
insisted in
a speech that he too thought somebody needed to step in and curate
information of this wild, wild west media environment,”
 she
notes.

But
there 
hadn’t been
a ruckus, much less a few lone voices, griping about fake news as an
issue of any import — or even complaining, at all.

Nobody
in the public had been clamoring for any such thing,”
 Attkisson
continues, “yet,
suddenly, the topic of fake news dominates headlines on a daily
basis. It’s as if the media had been given its marching orders.

Fake
news, they insisted, was an imminent threat to American Democracy.”

Aware “few
themes arise”
 in
the mass media environment “
organically,” the
seasoned investigator followed the money to First Draft’s funders —
to discern which interested parties might be backing the rally
against fake news. Google, in fact, financed the group “
around
the start of the election cycle”
 —
Google, whose parent company Alphabet’s CEO 
Eric
Schmidt
 both
acted as adviser and multi-million-dollar donor to the presidential
campaign of Hillary Clinton.

Mirroring
Obama’s lament, Clinton soon championed quashing fake news as a
priority — and her “surrogate, David Brock of Media
Matters, privately told donors he was the one who convinced Facebook
to join the effort,”
 she adds.

I’m
not the only one who thought that the whole thing smacked of the
roll-out of a propaganda campaign.”

Indeed,
the 
nascent fake
news allegation almost exclusively centered around
conservative-leaning outlets, journalists, and articles perceived as
favoring then-candidate Trump — and repeatedly alongside
allegations those media entities were acting directly, indirectly, or
haplessly at the behest of the Russian government — while the
majority of the mud-slinging was 
levied without
proof or the flimsiest of supporting evidence.

To
wit, a succession of pieces published by mass media dispensed with
the indispensable journalistic protocols of source- and fact-checking
— then shied away from accepting responsibility for the incendiary
and damaging claims once a furious backlash ensued.

Although
Attkisson did not mention them specifically in the roughly ten-minute
Tedx talk at the University of Nevada, two lists published at the
height of the Fake News Scare — both of which were either
republished or alluded and linked to by multiple corporate outlets —
came into public purview under highly suspect circumstances, each
lending albeit indirect credence to the hypothesis a propaganda
crusade was underway.

On
November 13, 2016, Merrimack College associate professor Melissa
Zimdars out of the blue made public a Google document entitled,
“False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and/or Satirical ‘News’
Sources,” she later described as essentially a worksheet intended
for colleagues and students to offer one another tips for avoiding
disseminating fake news.

So
… I posted it to Facebook to my friends, you know, ‘Hey, media
and communication people, if you think of other examples you come
across,’”
 she
explained of the list’s creation to 
USA
Today College
 in
an 
interview, “and
so many of them sent me Facebook messages or comments and emails and
I looked through them or through some of the people sent me blogs or
other sources.”

Admittedly,
without vetting whether or not each (or even a few) of the sites
conjured from that Facebook post deserved a place on the inflammatory
list, Zimdars committed the precise journalistic fraud putatively
motivating its formation in the first place — as did the 
Los
Angeles Times
,
whose 
piece,

Want
to keep fake news out of your newsfeed? College professor creates
list of sites to avoid,” let loose the unverified, unchecked, and
unauthenticated aggregation, with its purely subjective guidelines,
onto a populace stirred to frenzy over fake news, to expectedly viral
results.

Critics
and listees — many of which cogently included established if
smaller conservative and pro-Trump outlets, as well as those covering
the deluge of corruption allegations spawned from a series of leaks
against then-candidate Clinton, John Podesta, and the Democratic
National Committee — lambasted Zimdars, the Times, and other
propagators for failing the integrity litmus test. Slapped with
requests for removal and a firestorm of fury, Zimdars temporarily
revoked public access to the contentious list with vows to edit and
update information as appropriate, and authored an 
editorial
defense
,
appearing in the 
Post on
November 18, titled, “My ‘fake news list’ went viral. But
made-up stories are only part of the problem.”

Despite
the mayhem and arguable damage it caused to myriad legitimate sources
listed among the obvious disinformation outlets, Zimdars’ list is
once again open to the public — on 
Google Docs.

After
having established itself as a 
defender of
the associate professor’s worksheet, the 
Washington
Post
 took
the 
L.A.
Times

lead, issuing an article on November 24 almost wholly pertaining to a
list it failed to embed or even link — only the name of the
problematic organization, PropOrNot, provided clues for readers
dedicated enough to search on their own. And they did in droves.

But
the Post’s reckless foray into tabloidesque journalism
— perhaps wary of negative perception beginning to foment against
the anti-fake news brigade — crossed several lines demarcating
standards of journalism; and weaved another narrative of equally
dubious stature into the already unraveling anti-disinformation war:
Russia.

Russian
propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election,
experts say,” the outlet 
proclaimed
in the title
 for
the article — whose un-accompanying blacklist pegged hundreds of
independent, 
conservative,
pro-Bernie Sanders, pro-Trump, and even left-leaning and
award-winning sites as suddenly verboten due to direct or indirect
Russian influence, or for acting as Russia’s “
useful
idiots”
 —
all while vocally preserving the anonymity of the “
four
sets of researchers”
 responsible.
Among them, PropOrNot.

The
flood of ‘fake news’ this election season got support from a
sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread
misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat
Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining
faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked
the operation,”
 the
piece’s lede 
contends.

But,
devoid named sources to question, transparency of methodologies, nor
any other potentially mitigating factors which would have allowed
independent verification contained in the original article, outrage
this time included the Post’s competition.

In
fact, several organizations listed as ‘allies’ by PropOrNot
immediately disavowed the claim. Eliot Higgins of research-focused
Bellingcat, one of several entities named as such, 
tweeted
that prior to the Post’s article, he had never heard of PropOrNot —
incidentally indicating a lack of contact by reporters from the media
organization — and, further, he “
never
gave permission to them to call Bellingcat ‘allies.’”

Fortune’s
Mathew Ingram penned an incredulous 
response,
entitled, “No, Russian Agents Are Not

Behind
Every Piece of Fake News You See.” Effectively destroying every
facet of the Post’s anathema piece, Ingram points out there
is “
also
little data available on the PropOrNot report, which describes a
network of 200 sites who it says are ‘routine peddlers of Russian
propaganda,’ which have what it calls a ‘combined audience of 15
million Americans.’ How is that audience measured? We don’t know.
Stories promoted by this network were shared 213 million times, it
says. How do we know this? That’s unclear.”

Ultimately
forced into addressing the resulting chaos, the 
Washington
Post
 article eventually
bore a note from the editor — not a retraction — asserting [with
emphasis added],

The
Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four sets
of researchers who have examined 
what
they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine American
democracy and interests
.
One of them was PropOrNot, a group that 
insists
on public anonymity
,
which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its
view, wittingly or unwittingly published or echoed Russian
propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included
on PropOrNot’s list, and some of the sites, as well as others not
on the list, have publicly challenged the group’s methodology and
conclusions. 
The
Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not itself vouch for
the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media
outlet, nor did the article purport to do so.
 Since
publication of The Post’s story, PropOrNot has removed some sites
from its list.”

To
reiterate, the Post did not retract the article abruptly conflating
fake news with Russian propaganda — regardless the brazen if
planned distancing of itself from the content therein — and has
never divulged its justification for publishing such threadbare work,
nor for allowing the empty allegations to remain available for the
world to read online in perpetuity.

On
January 8, 2017, amid continued outrage over specious and vapid fake
news and Russian propaganda accusations, 
Washington
Post
 columnist
Margaret Sullivan declared the entirety of the outlet’s relentless
anti-fake news jihad null, titling an 
article,
“It’s time to retire the tainted term ‘fake news,’”
positing the term’s mere monthslong duration may have served a
purpose at its advent, but “
its
meaning already is lost.”

Attkisson
notably emphasizes, however, the term never imparted a steel
definition nor universally agreed-upon guidelines delineating
precisely what it constitutes. That ambiguity disputably explains
placing the term front and center in a propaganda campaign — as it
is sharply suggested by Attkisson’s funding investigation of First
Draft with bulk of the aforementioned body of evidence — for doubt
before persuasion wields power.

For
its irresponsible reporting of the unsubstantiated blacklist, 
false
claims
 Russia
had 
hacked into
Vermont’s power grid, and all-out push to — for all intents and
purposes — vilify or discredit opposing but legitimate viewpoints,
the 
Washington
Post
 and
its 
controversial owner Jeff
Bezos
,
also CEO of 
Amazon,
garnered praise from failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton,
who professed without a hint of irony to an audience May 31, 2017, at
the annual Code Conference, as 
quoted
by
 CNBC,

I
think Jeff Bezos saved The Washington Post. But newspapers, like the
Post, the Journal, the Times, others — still drive news. … It was
a very good use of his financial resources. Because now we have a
very good newspaper again operating in Washington, and driving news
elsewhere.”

All
bold tit-for-tat back-patting aside, Clinton’s adoration for an
ostensive news organization, which  displayed an egregious lack
of journalistic standards on several occasions might be only telling,
were the audacious effort to mute dissenting and critical voices —
who had reported factually on damning evidence of layers of
corruption plaguing the former secretary of state’s campaign,
officials, and party as divulged by Wikileaks — not also tandemly
gaining momentum.

It
has been theorized the work of journalists not employed by
traditional, corporate mass media organizations had — in wading
through the vitriol of election season to report the avalanche of
information dumped in leaks and pivotal to outcome, yet ignored by
mass media — assisted in stoking rage against the establishment and
was responsible for the concurrent astronomical success of the
Sanders campaign, to the detriment and consternation of Clinton.

Whether
or not that hypothesis holds weight, that responsible reporting
picked up mainstream’s slack, as the big-name outlets instead
trained their audiences’ attentions on questioning Wikileaks,
whistleblowers, and similar diversions. In short, the widely-varied
body of independent media became essential for the dissemination of
accurate information. But that vitality, under the vacuous premise of
combating fake news, is being strangled by oppressive social
media 
algorithms,
yanked 
advertising and
sponsor dollars, and other tactics perhaps comprising the truer
imminent threat to vestiges of democracy: censorship,
through 
suppression and omission,
of a free press.

This
debilitating loss — the neutering of media still upholding its duty
to question government and report facts for their own sake — to a
concerted effort to solve the manufactured fake news problem would be
irrevocable tragedy.

Attkisson
— a 
noted dissenting
voice, 
critical of
lapdog media, herself — stopped short of a definitive conclusion
regarding a coordinated propaganda campaign, warning,

What
you need to remember is that when interests are working this hard to
shape your opinion, 
their
true goal might
just be to add another layer between you and the truth.”

By Clive
Murphy
 /
Republished with permission / 
The
Mind Unleashed
 / Report
a typo

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

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

       en: ‘Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump‘ (artikel in Nederlands)

        en: ‘BBC World Service en BNR met ‘fake news’ over Ghouta……..

        en: ‘Syrische nonnen spreken zich uit tegen de oorlogspropaganda van westerse mogendheden en de reguliere westerse (massa-) media

        en: ‘Massamedia VS vergeven van CIA ‘veteranen’, alsof die media nog niet genoeg ‘fake news’ ofwel leugens brengen……..

       en: ‘Russiagate, of: hoe de media u belazeren met verhalen over Russische bemoeienis met de VS presidentsverkiezingen……..‘ 

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

       en: ‘Fake News van CNN: ‘American Sniper gedood in Syrie….’ ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

      en: ‘BBC publieksmanipulatie via het nieuws: Rusland steunt de slechteriken……‘ (met daaronder meerdere links naar BBC propaganda berichten, dan wel berichten over die propaganda)

       en: ‘FBI, de spin in het Russiagate web……..

       en: ‘Anti-Russische-Putin propaganda op Radio1, ofwel Godfroid uit de bocht met 10 km/u……..

       en: ‘BBC gaat met stafleden scholen af in de strijd tegen ‘fake news…’ ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

       en: ‘Trump administratie manipuleert de bevolking middels ‘fake news’ richting oorlog met Iran……………..

       en: ‘RT America één van de eerste slachtoffers in een heksenjacht op westerse alternatieve media en nadenkend links……

       en: ‘Ollongren gesteund door Thomas Boesgaard (AD), ‘Rusland verpakt het nepnieuws gekoppeld aan echt nieuws…..’ Oei!!‘ (ja ook deze D66 plork gaat plat op de bek!)

       en: ‘Syrië: Vlaamse pater roept op niet langer de westerse anti-Syrië propaganda te geloven!

       en: ‘Kajsa Ollongren (D66 vicepremier): Nederland staat in het vizier van Russische inlichtingendiensten……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

       en: ‘Ollongren (D66 minister) schiet een levensgrote bok met fake news show

       en: ‘‘Russiagate’ een verhaal van a t/m z westers ‘fake news…..’

       en: ‘Russiagate, of: hoe de media u belazeren met verhalen over Russische bemoeienis met de VS presidentsverkiezingen……..‘ 

       en: ‘‘Russiagate’ een complot van CIA, FBI, Hillary Clinton en het DNC………..

       en: ‘Russische ‘hacks’ door deskundigen nogmaals als fake news doorgeprikt >> Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russia Hack’ Evidence

       en: Publicly Available Evidence Doesn’t Support Russian Gov Hacking of 2016 Election

       en: ‘MSM Create #Fakenews Storm As Rebel Aleppo Vanishes

       en: ‘‘BBC Propaganda’ ‘Ken Loach just proved beyond doubt that the BBC is brainwashing the British public’‘ [VIDEO] 

      en: ‘Fallujah en Aleppo, twee belegerde steden, een opvallend verschil in berichtgeving door de reguliere media………

       en: ‘Extracting Aleppo from the Propaganda: Interviewwith Eva Bartlett, an independent western journalists covering the horrific conflict in Syria‘. (van Information Clearing House, inclusief mogelijkheid tot vertaling)

      en: ‘CIA Chief Admits the Agency’s Role in the Syrian War‘ (de bloedige rol wel te verstaan…..) (een artikel met mogelijkheid tot vertaling)

        en: ‘Former UK Ambassador to Syria Debunks Aleppo Propaganda‘ (met mogelijkheid tot vertaling

       en: ‘Aleppo, de propagandaslag o.a. middels grove leugens in de reguliere westerse media en politiek………..

    en: ‘Iraakse strijdmacht gaf grif toe dat tot hun orders voor West-Mosul ook het vermoorden van vrouwen en kinderen behoorde……..

       en: ‘Raqqa >> BBC World Service en ‘onafhankelijke journalistiek’: ‘Er zijn veel burgers omgekomen bij de strijd in de straten in Raqqa……..’

      en: ‘Massamedium CBS (VS) tegen reality check. Logisch wel, gezien de hoeveelheid fake news op die zender…..


    en: ‘SOHR, het orgaan dat door de reguliere media wordt aangehaald i.z. Syrië, is gevestigd in Coventry


     en: ‘De Russiagate samenzweringstheorie dient de machthebbers……… 

Mijn excuus voor de belabberde weergave.