Howard
Stern is een populaire radiopresentator (en aansteller) die afgelopen
week oorlogsmisdadiger Hillary Clinton interviewde. Veel over
de verkiezingen in 2016 en de komende VS presidentsverkiezingen
volgend jaar november. Uiteraard zijn haar de verkiezingen van 2016
ontstolen en de groep die daar verantwoordelijk voor is, is dezelfde groep die
haar nog steeds dwarszit, alleen groeit deze groep met de dag, als je Clinton moet geloven en hoort fulmineren, zo zijn nu ook Bernie
Sanders en Tulsi Gabbard lakeien van de Russen
Kortom:
Hillary Clinton was met haar plastictronie bezig kandidaten van haar eigen Democratische Partij te beschuldigen van samenwerking met de Russen, waarbij ze het
beschrijft alsof de Russen deze personen, mensen als Gabbard en
Sanders, als marionetten bespelen……
Hillary
Clinton heeft tijdens de democratische voorverkiezingen in 2016 een
heel smerig spelletje gespeeld, wat Sanders zijn kandidatuur voor het
presidentschap kostte…… Een medewerker uit haar team was daar zo
ontdaan over dat deze man, genaamd Seth Rich, een groot aantal mails
lekte waaruit bleek dat Clinton dit gore spel inderdaad heeft
gespeeld….. Bliksemsnel besloot men de Russen aan te wijzen als de
schuldige voor het lekken van de mails en klokkenluider Seth Rich was op straat het
slachtoffer van een roofmoord, echter noch zijn portefeuille, noch
zijn opzichtige sieraden werden gestolen, ofwel hier is zonder meer
sprake van een politieke moord, in opdracht van……..
Zonder
dat er verder nog over het misdadige optreden van Clinton werd
gesproken, kwam er een campagne opgang tegen Rusland, waar de westerse politici en
de reguliere westerse media, inclusief een aantal geheime diensten,
oorlogshitsers als die van het Haags Centrum voor Strategische Studies (HCSS) en andere anti-Russische denktanks, als de Atlantic Council (NAVO denktank) aan
meewerkten, zelfs D66 imbi Ollongren zag plotseling overal
Russen…… (ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!)
Clinton
heeft zelfs het gore lef te zeggen dat ze het gedrag van Sanders
onbegrijpelijk vindt, door te stellen dat ze niet hoopt dat Sanders hetzelfde flikt als een ander de Democratische nominatie wint….. Het voorgaande terwijl ze hem, als gezegd, zo ongeveer de meest
smerige streek uit de politiek van de laatste 20 jaar heeft geleverd
en dan is dit ook nog eens een partijgenoot van Clinton, die alsnog
vervolgd zou moeten worden voor het smerige spel dat ze speelde…… (overigens heeft Sanders in 2016 de campagne van Clinton gesteund na haar ‘overwinning’ in de Democratische voorverkiezingen)
Het
volgende bericht komt van Zero Hedge en werd geschreven door
‘Tyler Durden’, ik nam het over van Anti-Media. Heb aan het
eind ook het hele interview, waar ik een kort fragment uit een ‘Twittervideo’ niet kan overnemen (zal een link toevoegen). Heb
een deel van het interview gezien, totdat ik kotsmisselijk werd van
Clinton, ik wens je daarom ook veel sterkte als je de volle 26
minuten wilt uitzitten…..
Hillary
Casually Drops ‘Russian Asset’ Smear on Bernie Sanders in New
Interview
(ZH) — Hillary
Clinton went on the Howard Stern show this week for a
wide-ranging interview with the popular radio host, specifically
focusing on her loss to Trump and what 2020 looks like — a
race she’s recently dropped hints she could be prepared to enter,
however unlikely that might be.
While
the Wednesday interview was widely covered in the media, there’s
one segment largely overlooked in the mainstream, but which is
stunning nonetheless. We’ve grown used to her ‘Trump is a
Russian asset’ line in her typical blame game fashion anytime
she makes a media appearance; however, she
did repeat the less common conspiracy that links rival Democrat
Bernie Sanders to the Kremlin.
She
wasn’t even asked, but briefly voluntarily inserted the reference
while discussing the Mueller investigation.
Speaking
of the Russians, she claimed, “They
were like – ‘hey let’s do everything we can to elect Donald
Trump’. Those are quotes… those are words [they used]… And
they also said Bernie Sanders.”
“But
you know that’s for another day…”
Stern
runs with it: “Do
we hate Bernie Sanders?”
“I
don’t hate anybody,” but agrees with Stern’s assessment that he
took a while to endorse her:
“He
could have. He
hurt me, there’s no doubt about it.”
Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders at a debate on February 4, 2016 in Durham, New Hampshire. Getty Images
Then
she delivered the final punch at a moment Sanders continues
to gain in the polls,
especially among young voters: “And
I hope he doesn’t do it again to whoever gets the nomination. Once
is enough.”
There
it is: her disastrous 2016 loss continues to be the fault of everyone
else, who are apparently all somehow Russian puppets, even the
Leftist Jewish Senator from Vermont (and let’s not forget the Green
Party’s Jill Stein).
– –
–
If
you can stomach watching it, she elsewhere describes in detail ‘how
she felt’ being present for Trump’s inauguration
ceremony. “Which
was one of the hardest days of my life, to be honest!”
Jill
Stein de voormalige presidentskandidaat van de Green Party in de VS,
heeft in een paar punten duidelijk gemaakt dat het de VS niet gaat om
‘mensenrechtenschendingen’ of de armoede in Venezuela, dit door te
wijzen op andere situaties waar de VS totaal geen problemen heeft met
deze schendingen, zelfs als ze uitmonden in massamoorden……
Wat betreft armoede moet de VS zich al helemaal stilhouden, gezien de enorme armoede in dat gestolen land, waar 29 miljoen van de 40 miljoen arme mensen* niet eens een gezondheidsverzekering hebben…….
Jammer
dat Stein alleen terzijde in een Twitterbericht wijst op het feit dat
het de VS gaat om olie, terwijl Venezuela de op één na grootste
olievoorraad ter wereld bezit, waar Venezuela ook nog eens de beschikking
over heeft over een grote hoeveelheid coltan, een grondstof die wordt
gebruikt in de smartphone….. Beiden zaken waar de VS de beschikking over wil hebben…….
Als
voorbeelden voor het geen probleem hebben met (fascistische)
dictaturen of andere rechtse regimes, noemt Stein Colombia en
Honduras, die worden gesteund door de VS (waar de VS zelfs
verantwoordelijk is voor de coup van 2009 in Honduras….)…. Weer
een misser, waarom niet wijzen op het feit dat de VS de Saoedische
terreurcoalitie steunt bij het uitvoeren van een genocide in Jemen??
Een zaak waar de wereld echt van op de kop zou moeten staan, i.p.v.
de gebeurtenissen in Venezuela, NB één op één het gevolg van de
economische oorlog die de VS al jaren voert tegen dit land!!!
Wel een
goed voorbeeld van Stein is het met enorm veel geweld neerslaan van
protesten tegen het neoliberalisme door arme Venezolanen in 1989…… Protesten die de naam Caracazo
meekregen, protesten waarbij het destijds fascistische regime een
enorme slachting heeft aangericht, waarvan de naar schatting 300 tot 3.000
slachtoffers in massagraven werden gedumpt…… Caracazo was de
aanloop naar de grootste slachting uit de Venezolaanse geschiedenis,
aldus de schrijver Ed Sykes van het hieronder opgenomen artikel van The Canary.
Stein
zegt dat de VS totaal geen moeite had met deze slachting 30 jaar geleden in Venezuela en de andere
kant opkeek (vergelijk dit eens met de houding van de VS nu…),
terwijl Stein stelt dat de VS rechtse (en ronduit fascistische, Ap) regimes steunt, ziet ze blijkbaar
niet dat de VS ook voor deze slachting in Venezuela haar toestemming en wellicht
zelfs advies heeft gegeven aan de dictatuur hoe e.e.a. aan te pakken……
Stein
slaat de plank nog eens mis, door te wijzen op de arme Venezolanen
die geen eten zouden hebben en in het vuilnis naar voedsel zoeken,
iets waar ze terecht over zegt dat dit in de VS veelvuldig
gebeurt….. De beelden over honger en andere ellende in Venezuela
zijn onderdeel van de anti-Maduro propaganda…… Uiteraard zijn er
zware tekorten, echter al een paar maanden zijn het Rode Kruis en de
VN bezig met humanitaire hulp in Venezuela, dit met een hoeveelheid
humanitaire hulpgoederen die bewezen niet in de schaduw kan staan van
wat de VS klaar heeft staan over de grens van Venezuela en Brazilië……. (20 keer zoveel!)
Terecht
stelt Stein dat de VS de grote tekorten in Venezuela heeft
veroorzaakt, waar ze wijst op de huidige sancties, intussen
overgenomen door o.a. Canada en de EU……. Alweer jammer dat Stein
niet meldt dat de VS al voor de sancties bezig was met een boycot van
Venezuela wat betreft levensmiddelen en medicijnen, ook al was deze
boycot niet officieel, is het al lang duidelijk dat e.e.a. heeft
plaatsgevonden….. Zo heeft Hillary Clinton, als minister van BuZa
onder ‘vredesduif’ Obama, de VS supermarktketens met winkels in
Venezuela onder druk gezet de voorraden niet of anders mondjesmaat
aan te vullen, waar ze de grote farmaceuten onder druk zette
hetzelfde te doen met medicijnleveringen voor Venezuela……
Het
Canary artikel is wel degelijk van belang daar op een aantal
hypocriete zaken wordt gewezen, zoals het aanhalen van de opstand in
1989 en bijvoorbeeld de uitlating van de VN dat de VS sancties
verantwoordelijk zijn voor de doden die in Venezuela zijn
gevallen…… Jammer dat niet wordt aangegeven dat de doden door de
sancties, de chronisch zieken en terminaal zieken zijn, aangevuld met heel jonge slachtoffers, alles door gebrek aan medicijnen…..
Wat een
gemiste kans niet even te wijzen op het feit dat dezelfde VN en het
Rode Kruis beiden de VS veroordeelden voor het tot een politiek
drukmiddel maken van humanitaire hulp, terwijl deze organisaties
zoals gezegd allang volop humanitaire hulp verstrekken binnen de
grenzen van Venezuela……
Met haar
pleidooi geeft Stein de anti-propaganda van de VS en de reguliere
westerse massamedia deels gelijk, anders kan ik het niet zien…..
Nogmaals: het artikel is verder belangrijk genoeg om te belichten,
daar er wel degelijk wordt gewezen op het schunnige beleid van de VS
(en andere westerse landen) tegen in feite het Venezolaanse
volk……
Wel mooi
dat Stein in feite in 2 punten weergeeft hoe hypocriet de VS bezig
is.
Jill
Stein clobbers US warhawks with a perfect takedown of their
regime-change propaganda
Former
US Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has been on fire
recently. In particular, she’s been putting
the mainstream US left to
shame with her vocal
opposition to
the US-backed coup
attempt in
Venezuela. This week, on the 30th anniversary of a notorious massacre
by a US-backed government in the country, she had a perfect takedown
of US warhawks. And we should all listen to her.
When
the US turned a blind eye to Venezuela’s biggest massacre
As
author George Ciccariello-Maher pointed out on 27 February:
30 years ago today in Venezuela: the mass rebellion against neoliberalism known as the Caracazo, which ended in the massacre of 300 to 3,000, most dumped in mass graves. Today, neoliberals claim the mantle of human rights as they try to do the same. Never forget!
And
Stein spread that message. In particular, she stressed how Washington
ignored the Caracazo (Venezuela’s biggest massacre
in the 20th century) just like it ignores the dire situations
in Colombia and Honduras today:
30 years ago Venezuela’s neoliberal gov’t brutally crushed a poor people’s uprising. US ignored it, just like it ignores political prisoners, targeted killings, & humanitarian crises in right-wing states like Colombia & Honduras. US cares about #Venezuela‘s oil, NOT human rights.
Colombia
and Honduras, of course, are US allies. Venezuela, on the other hand,
isn’t. And Washington has a long
history of
boosting far-right allies in Latin America while opposing anyone on
the left.
Seriously,
Washington? Stop taking the piss.
US
political elites have been obsessing over Venezuela’s crisis for
weeks now.
They’ve also been tightening
their chokehold on
Venezuela’s economy with more and more sanctions. As a former UN
expert toldThe
Canary this
week:
the
sanctions are the direct cause of death… they
constitute a crime against humanity
Stein
isn’t falling for the warhawks’ propaganda and phoney concern,
though. Instead, she’s been pointing out that these same elites
have done precious nothing to end crises raging at home:
Isn’t it weird that Trump hasn’t done a thing to help 40M Americans in poverty, 29M without health insurance, 500K living on the streets, or entire cities without clean water… but suddenly he cares so much about humanitarian aid to #Venezuela that he’s willing to start a war?
Republicans seem concerned about a video of people in #Venezuela eating from the garbage. Strange – they’ve never done a thing to help over 500K homeless Americans! But if they really want to help Venezuelans, why not lift sanctions The Economist admitted will lead to starvation?
Isn’t it strange that Trump wants to ram through #Venezuela‘s border to “bring humanitarian aid to desperate people”, while his party wants to prosecute Americans who give water to refugees at our border? Almost like their “humanitarian aid” is just an excuse to incite a war.
Stein
has brilliantly cut through the bullshit that US warhawks have
been spewing for
weeks now. And she’s exposed and stressed two key points:
That
Washington picks and chooses which foreign crises to get angry
about, usually depending on whether the local governments are allies
or not.
That
Washington waxes lyrical about poverty abroad, but does next to
nothing to address the crisis of poverty and inequality at
home.
They’re
points that we all need to remember. And they’re points we need to
be throwing back into the face of anyone who’s calling
for illegal regime-change
efforts in Venezuela.
*Het aantal van 40 miljoen arme VS burgers aan de lage kant, gezien het aantal burgers in de VS dat afhankelijk is van voedselbonnen, dat waren er een paar jaar geleden nog rond de 50 miljoen en dit aantal is sindsdien allesbehalve gedaald…….
(de opgeblazen oorlogshitser en oorlogsmisdadiger Pompeo beweert dat Hezbollah werkzaam is in Venezuela en daar een leger heeft dat gezien zijn woorden amper onder doet voor de gezamenlijke NAVO troepen… ha! ha! ha! Ook hier is totaal geen bewijs voor deze belachelijke beschuldiging…)
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.
Drie dagen voordat Trump zich terugtrok van de onderhandelingen met Kim Yung-un, zei oorlogshitser en grootlobbyist van het militair-industrieel complex, Bolton dat de onderhandelingen met Noord-Korea van hetzelfde kaliber zijn als die met Libië, zo’n 13 jaar voordat het bewind van Khadaffi omver werd geworpen door de illegale oorlog die de VS en NAVO coalitie tegen Libië begon……
Des te opvallender de opmerking van het beest Trump, hij heeft het gesprek met Kim afgezegd vanwege de agressieve woorden die Noord-Korea zou hebben gebruikt…….. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Een enorm grote pot, verwijt een piepklein keteltje zwart te zien!
Leeghoofd Mike Pence probeerde de (agressieve) woorden van Bolton tevergeefs af te zwakken, met te stellen dat Noord-Korea hetzelfde lot te wachten staat als Libië, wanneer Noord-Korea niet akkoord zou gaan met de voorwaarden van de VS…. Ofwel: de besprekingen tussen Trump en Kim waren bedoeld voor de bühne en Kim werd alleen geacht z’n handtekening te zetten onder de voorwaarden zoals de VS die zou dicteren……..
Uiteraard heeft Noord-Korea daarop zelf voorwaarden gesteld……
Overigens werd gisteren, bekend gemaakt dat ondanks de afzegging van Trump, Noord-Korea bereid blijft te praten* (zo die kunnen de hufters Trump, Bolton en Pence in hun zak steken!).
Vanmorgen werd bekend gemaakt dat Trump nu toch wil praten met Kim, al hoef je niet op te kijken als hij het uiteindelijk toch af laat weten….. Om te beginnen zal de VS van Noord-Korea opnieuw eisen de zaken te tekenen die de VS het land voorlegt, ofwel wat stelt het overleg tussen Trump en Kim dan nog voor??
Mensen lees het volgende prima de luxe en verhelderende artikel van Caitlin Johnstone over deze zaak:
Brilliant Strategy of Offering North Korea the ‘Libya Model’ Somehow Falls Through
Three days before President Trump announced him as the new National Security Advisor, deranged mutant death walrus John Bolton appeared on Radio Free Asia and said of negotiations with North Korea, “I think we should insist that if this meeting is going to take place, it will be similar to discussions we had with Libya 13 or 14 years ago.”
Bolton has been loudly and publicly advocating “the Libya model” with the DPRK ever since.
“I think we’re looking at the Libya model of 2003, 2004,” Bolton said on Face the Nation last month, and said the same on Fox News Sunday in case anyone failed to get the message.
Bolton never bothered to refine his message by saying, for example, “Without the part where we betray and invade them and get their leader mutilated to death in the streets.” He just said they’re doing Libya again.
This was what John Bolton was saying before he was hired, and this was what John Bolton continued to say after he was hired. This was what John Bolton was hired to do. He was hired to sabotage peace and facilitate death and destruction. That is what he does. That is what he is for. Can openers open cans, John Bolton starts wars. You don’t buy a can opener to rotate your tires, and you don’t hire John Bolton to facilitate peace.
It should have surprised no one, then, when the administration saw Bolton’s Libya comments and raised him a canceled peace talk.
“You know, there were some talk about the Libya model last week,” Vice President Pence told Fox News on Saturday. “And you know, as the president made clear, you know, this will only end like the Libya model ended if Kim Jong-un doesn’t make a deal.”
“Some people saw that as a threat,” Fox’s Martha MacCallum replied, because there is no other way it could possibly be interpreted.
Pence blathered something about it being “a fact”, not a threat, but that is because he is a fake plastic doll manufactured by Raytheon. It was an extremely obvious and blatant threat, so of course North Korea responded accordingly. Below is the full text of the response to Pence’s statement by North Korea’s Vice Foreign Minister Choe Son Hui, which reportedly was the basis for Trump’s cancellation of the scheduled summit in Singapore:
“At an interview with Fox News on May 21, US Vice-President Pence made unbridled and impudent remarks that North Korea might end like Libya, military option for North Korea never came off the table, the US needs complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation, and so on.
As a person involved in the US affairs, I cannot suppress my surprise at such ignorant and stupid remarks gushing out from the mouth of the US vice-president.
If he is vice-president of “single superpower” as is in name, it will be proper for him to know even a little bit about the current state of global affairs and to sense to a certain degree the trends in dialogue and the climate of détente.
We could surmise more than enough what a political dummy he is as he is trying to compare the DPRK, a nuclear weapon state, to Libya that had simply installed a few items of equipment and fiddled around with them.
Soon after the White House National Security Adviser Bolton made the reckless remarks, Vice-President Pence has again spat out nonsense that the DPRK would follow in Libya’s footstep.
It is to be underlined, however, that in order not to follow in Libya’s footstep, we paid a heavy price to build up our powerful and reliable strength that can defend ourselves and safeguard peace and security in the Korean peninsula and the region.
In view of the remarks of the US high-ranking politicians who have not yet woken up to this stark reality and compare the DPRK to Libya that met a tragic fate, I come to think that they know too little about us.
To borrow their words, we can also make the US taste an appalling tragedy it has neither experienced nor even imagined up to now.
Before making such reckless threatening remarks without knowing exactly who he is facing, Pence should have seriously considered the terrible consequences of his words.
It is the US who has asked for dialogue, but now it is misleading the public opinion as if we have invited them to sit with us.
I only wonder what is the ulterior motive behind its move and what is it the US has calculated to gain from that.
We will neither beg the US for dialogue nor take the trouble to persuade them if they do not want to sit together with us.
Whether the US will meet us at a meeting room or encounter us at nuclear-to-nuclear showdown is entirely dependent upon the decision and behavior of the United States.
In case the US offends against our goodwill and clings to unlawful and outrageous acts, I will put forward a suggestion to our supreme leadership for reconsidering the DPRK-US summit.”
Trump cancels North Korea summit? Actually John Bolton already torpedoed it by telling North Korea to self destruct with the “Libya model”. This was perfect warmonger strategy to stop the threat of peace breaking out on the Peninsula. South Korea, please stay the course!
The message of Trump’s withdrawal couldn’t be more clear: we get to threaten you, you don’t get to threaten us. This extremely one-sided dynamic is not a style of negotiation that any sane person would go along with if they didn’t have to, and as Choe pointed out, North Korea doesn’t have to. Libya had only the barest rudiments of what could have eventually one day become a nuclear program. North Korea has a full arsenal, and thus a much bigger stack of bargaining chips. A negotiation at gunpoint can only be one-sided if the other side has no gun.
This negotiation was never meant to succeed. Publicly stating that North Korea gets “the Libya model” was like a hostage negotiator offering “the Waco model”. It was plainly designed to fail.
Of course the US-centralized empire has no intention of a mutually beneficial negotiation with a sovereign nation. That isn’t how imperialism works. You either join the mass of tightly allied nations which function in effective unison on foreign policy, or you are smashed like Libya. This policy of threatening nations to join the empire on pain of decimation is what is causing all nonconforming nations to form into a growing and increasingly close alliance of their own, and it is what is causing them to seek nuclear weapons so that they don’t end up like Libya.
If there’s a silver lining to be found in all of this, it was summed up by the Ron Paul Liberty Report’s Daniel McAdams:
“I think Trump is making America great again by making America irrelevant. We are irrelevant in the North and South peace talks right now. The ball is completely in [South Korea President] Moon’s court, what is he going to do next; we’ve basically recused ourselves from the whole process. Which is very, very good for us. So I feel rather upbeat. I think although it’s always better to talk to people, and it would be better to talk, but in the current environment, for us to get out of the way is really the non-interventionist position.”
America getting out of the way would be great for everyone, especially for the Americans whose resources are being relentlessly consumed by constant aggressive interventionism and an oligarchy whose vastly disproportionate wealth is propped up with the barrel of a gun. The natural drive of plutocratic smash-and-grab imperialism is in the exact opposite direction of non-interventionism, but as people continue to wake up from the madness and the rest of the world refuses to be consumed by the blob, it’s possible that the empire ends not with a bang but with a barely noticed fizzle. And that is my sincere prayer for all of us.
De
democratische partij in de VS zit in grote ellende, waar de top
onlangs toegaf dat men de voorverkiezingen in de partij, voorafgaand
aan de presidentsverkiezingen heeft gestoken, dit ten koste van
progressieve kandidaten als Sanders. Voorts is men bezig een
aanklacht tegen Wikileaks voor te bereiden vanwege de feitelijke berichtgeving over de manipulaties van die partijtop…….
Intussen
is het zo dat je in de VS niet ongestraft kan zeggen dat het hele
Russiagate verhaal verzonnen is om Rusland de schuld voor o.a. het
lekken van documenten en manipulatie van de verkiezingen in de
schoenen te schuiven. Je wordt nog net niet door de overheid
vervolgd, maar je naam wordt door de media al snel door de stront
gehaald…..
Met
andere woorden: als je kritiek hebt op smerige beschuldigingen van o.a. de geheime diensten en de reguliere media, beschuldigingen waar geen nanometer bewijs voor is, ben je een linkse Russische trol (en eigenlijk een verrader…), ook al is jouw verhaal op feiten gebaseerd……….
Jill Stein, leider van de Green Party in de VS wordt o.a. door Jim Sciutto van CNN aangemerkt als een Russische trol, dit voor het aanhalen van feitelijke VS bemoeienis met verkiezingen in andere landen (gedocumenteerd)……. Uiteraard is dit uitermate gevaarlijk, zeker in de ‘gun crazy’ VS, mensen daar zijn voor minder vermoord……..
Lees
het volgende onthutsende verhaal van Caitlin Johnstone, gepubliceerd
op Steemit:
“Russian
Talking Points” Look An Awful Lot Like Well-Documented Facts
Things
aren’t looking great for the Democratic establishment, which recently
admitted that it stacks its primaries against
progressive candidates and is currently engaged in a desperate, hail
Mary lawsuit
against WikiLeaks for
its factual publications about the party. So of course you know what
that means.
That’s
right! It’s time for Democratic pundits to begin down-punching Jill
Stein.
“Jill
Stein is on @NewDay right
now repeating Russian talking points on its interference in the 2016
election and on US foreign policy,” tweeted CNN
Chief National Security Correspondent Jim Sciutto today, without
shame or self-reflection.
Sciutto
was referring to comments Stein made on a CNN
interview today about
America’s undeniable, entirely factual and well-documented
history of
meddling in other countries’ elections, including a citation of
an ex-CIA
Director’s recent admission that
the US has interfered in foreign electoral processes and continues to
do so to this day.
Because
that’s what constitutes a “Russian talking point” these
days: raw, easily verifiable facts.
Stein’s
interviewer, Chris “It’s illegal to read WikiLeaks” Cuomo,
echoed a similar sentiment in response to her points, in essence
arguing that only Russians should be stating these blatantly obvious
and extremely relevant facts.
“You
know, that would be the case for Russia to make, not from the
American perspective,” Cuomo said. “Of course, there’s
hypocrisy involved, lots of different big state actors do lots of
things that they may not want people to know about. But let Russia
say that the United States did it to us, and here’s how they did it,
so this is fair play. From the American perspective and you running
for president, more than once of this country, shouldn’t your
position have been, this was bad what they did, they’re trying to do
it right now and we have to stop it?”
Right.
Because you have so many Russians on your show making that case, do
you Chris?
This
is absolute lunacy. The implication here is that it isn’t ever okay
for Americans to talk about Russia in any other context than how
awful and evil its government is; that nobody can speak about how
America’s behavior factors into the equation in a very real and
significant way. Not because it’s not factual, not because it’s not
relevant, but because it’s a “Russian talking point”, and
only Russians should be saying it.
And
this sentiment being promulgated by these establishment pundits is
being swallowed hook, line and sinker by the rank-and-file citizenry
who consume such media. Every single day, without exception, I am
accused multiple times of being a propagandist for the Kremlin. Not
because there’s any evidence for that, not because I’m writing
anything that is untruthful, but because I’m writing “Russian
talking points”, i.e. arguments that have ostensibly been made
at some point by Russians.
And
it is, to be perfectly honest, infuriating. These people are actively
making the case for willful ignorance and stupidity. They’re actively
arguing that facts which don’t support the narratives being
promulgated by the CIA and the State Department should be completely
excluded from all discussion within the western hemisphere, and that
only Russians should be making them. They do this while
simultaneously arguing that Russian media is dangerous and should be
avoided by Americans. Only Russians should argue against CIA/CNN
narratives, and we should never, ever listen to those arguments.
They’re
arguing for the deliberate omission of relevant facts from dialogue.
They are arguing that we should all be morons, on purpose.
Of course it’s
relevant to the discussion that the US interferes with foreign
democratic processes far more than any other government on the
planet! Are you nuts? Yes, obviously if
yours is the primary country responsible creating a climate wherein
governments meddle in the elections of other nations, that undeniable
fact must necessarily be a part of any sensible analysis of what’s
happening and what should be done about it. Anyone who tries to argue
that that fact shouldn’t be a part of the conversation is making an
argument in favor of stupidity.
That’s
not a “whataboutism”, as empire loyalists like Eric
Boehlert habitually claim.
It’s crucial factual information.
The
environment that these pundits are creating is itself hostile to
democracy. If all “talking points” are excluded from the
conversation other than those which lead to continually escalating
sanctions, proxy wars, nuclear posturing and brinkmanship, then
there’s no way for activism or democracy to tap the brake on the
west’s ongoing trajectory toward direct military confrontation with a
nuclear superpower.
In
her interview, Stein outlined this
quite clearly:
“You
know, I think that kind of position which says that we’re in a
totally different category from the rest of the world is not working.
This century of American domination, you know, sort of didn’t play
out the way we thought it would, we’re embroiled now — we have the
military in practically every country around the world. In the recent
taxes that people pay, the average American paid almost $3,500 that
went into the Department of Offense, I would call it, not the
Department of Defense, $3,500, whereas we put $40 into the EPA.
“You
know, 57 percent of our discretionary dollars now are going into the
military. It’s part of a mindset that says, we’re always right and
they’re always wrong and we’re going to be dominating militarily and
economically. We’re in a multi-polar world right now and, you know,
we need to behave as an exemplary member of the community and that is
by upholding ourselves and leading the way on international law,
human rights and diplomacy. That approach is really paying off on the
Korean peninsula right now. I think we should be using it more
broadly.”
Cuomo,
who as the son of a New York Governor and brother of the current New
York Governor is as much Democratic Party royalty as a Clinton, had
some very interesting facial expressions in response to Stein’s
arguments. Whenever an interviewee makes strong points which go
against the establishment grain he always looks like he’s taking a
really uncomfortable shit:
(ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!)
There
have been far too many cartoonishly absurd responses to Stein’s
interview for me to address in a single article without putting my
laptop through the wall in a fit of rage, but this
tweet from
MSNBC and Atlanticcontributor
Natasha Bertrand is really something else.
“Jill
Stein just told @CNN that
her presence at RT gala in Moscow Dec 2015 wasn’t controversial at
the time because Obama ‘was still on track for a reboot’ with Putin,”
said Bertrand, adding that “Russia had already annexed Crimea,
invaded eastern Ukraine, intervened in Syria for Assad, and hacked
the DNC.”
This
is actual, real-life “Oceania had always been at war with
Eastasia” Orwellian revisionist doublethink. There was no public
information about any Russian DNC hack in 2015, and the average
American hardly ever thought about Russia at that time.
Then-Secretary of State John Kerry personally
met with Vladimir Putin in July of 2016 to
discuss collaboration against terrorist forces in Syria. Only in the
most warped, revisionist, funhouse mirror Orwellian reality tunnel
can it be claimed that Stein visiting Moscow in December of 2015
would have been considered shady or controversial at the time.
The
fact that Bertrand’s tweet was liked and shared thousands of times on
Twitter is extremely creepy and disturbing. Establishment media
didn’t start indoctrinating American liberals with Russia hysteria
until the tail end of 2016, but it’s been so effective that MSNBC
mainliners are now gaslighting themselves into a revision of their
own history.
This
is why people like myself fight the CIA/CNN Russia narrative so
aggressively. Not because we’re propagandists, not because we’re
“useful idiots”, not because of “Russian talking
points”, but because the US-centralized power establishment’s
nonstop campaign to manufacture support for its agendas of global
hegemony are making us all stupid and crazy.
Stop
playing along with this bullshit. Stop letting them make us stupid
and crazy. Stop letting them manipulate us into consenting to
escalations with a nuclear superpower. Stop. Turn back. Wrong way.
Internet
censorship is getting pretty bad, so best way to keep seeing my daily
articles is to get on the mailing list for my website,
so you’ll get an email notification for everything I publish. My
articles and podcasts are entirely reader and listener-funded, so if
you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me
on Facebook,
following my antics on Twitter,checking
out mypodcast,
throwing some money into my hat onPatreonorPaypal, or
buying my new bookWoke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.
‘Campagne Clinton, smeriger dan gedacht…………‘ (met daarin daarin opgenomen de volgende artikelen: ‘Donna Brazile Bombshell: ‘Proof’ Hillary ‘Rigged’ Primary Against Bernie‘ en ‘Democrats in Denial After Donna Brazile Says Primary Was Rigged for Hillary‘)
Zie ook het volgende artikel daterend van 26 oktober 2017: ‘‘Death Sentence for Local Media’: Warnings as FCC Pushes Change to Benefit Right-Wing Media Giant‘ Met o.a.:“At a time when broadcast conglomerates like Sinclair are gobbling up new stations and pulling media resources out of marginalized communities, we still need the main studio rule to help connect broadcasters to the local viewers and listeners they’re supposed to serve.” —Dana Floberg, Free Press. Vergeet niet dat bijvoorbeeld de lokale dagbladen in ons land intussen zo ongeveer allemaal zijn ondergebracht bij de grote dagbladen, allen in bezit van op winst beluste eigenaren, dan wel (beursgenoteerde) politiek rechtse organisaties, die een eigen belang hebben bij voor hen gunstig gekleurde berichtgeving in de bladen die zij onder het beheer hebben, waarbij deze eigenaren allen grote aanhangers zijn van het ijskoude, inhumane neoliberalisme en grote voorstanders zijn van de VS terreur, waar ter wereld die ook wordt uitgeoefend……..
Voor de uiteindelijke VS presidentsverkiezingen vorig jaar, voorspelden velen dat het buitenlandbeleid onder Hillary Clinton een heel stuk agressiever zou zijn dan onder Trump, deze richtte zich tijdens de campagne juist meer op het binnenland en stelde dat de VS zich in het buitenland niet in nieuwe ‘avonturen’ zou storten en dat hij de militairen naar huis zou halen (nadat hij IS van de aardbodem zou hebben gebombardeerd..)……..
Intussen weten we dat door ongegronde klachten, als zou Trump de VS verkiezingen hebben gewonnen door Russische manipulaties, Trump een groot deel van het buitenlandbeleid overlaat aan de geheime diensten CIA en NSA….. Voorts heeft Trump het Pentagon een veel zelfstandiger rol gegeven wat betreft inzet van militairen en materieel in het buitenland (ook heeft hij dagelijks 3 topmilitairen naast zich in het Witte Huis..)… M.a.w. Trump heeft onder druk van de geheime diensten en het militair-industrieel complex bakzeil gehaald……
Tyler Durden plaatste afgelopen dinsdag op Zero Hedge een artikel over deze zaak na publicatie van een interview met Susan Sarandon, acteur, plus milieu en anti-oorlog activist, afgelopen zondag in The Guardian.
Sarandon keerde zich tegen haar voormalige vriendin Clinton* en steunde kandidaat Jill Stein van de Green Party. Volgens Durden werd Sarandon na het verlies van Clinton bedreigd door ‘linkse democraten’, zelfs met verkrachting en de dood….. Dat men in de VS niet weet wat echt ‘links’ inhoud is al lang bekend, maar het valt me van Durden wel tegen, dat hij de psychopaten die achter Clinton stonden en staan ‘links’ noemt…… Zelfs de andere democratische kandidaat, Bernie Sanders, heeft maar heel weinig met links te maken, al zou zijn beleid een stuk beter hebben uitgepakt voor de grote onderlaag in de VS, dan dat van Clinton of het twitterende beest Trump……
Sarandon zou gezegd hebben dat Clinton gevaarlijker is dan Trump, iets dat volgens Sarandon niet waar is, maar waar ze geen bezwaar tegen heeft (dus ze staat pal achter deze ‘voor haar verzonnen uitspraak’)
Lees het volgende artikel en oordeel zelf:
Susan
Sarandon: Hillary Clinton Would’ve Been “More Dangerous”
Than Trump
In
an interview with the Guardianpublished
Sunday night, actress Susan Sarandon – a noted anti-war and climate
progressive – described her former friend Hillary Clinton as “very
dangerous” in response to an interviewer’s question about why she
supported Green Party candidate Jill Stein.
Furthermore,
Sarandon, who has been the subject of vicious and persistent attacks
by leftists for supporting a third-party candidate that many blame,
wrongly, for throwing the election to Trump. She said she had to
change her phone number because – get this – angry Clinton
supporters left a torrent of death and rape threats on her voicemail.
Sarandon,
who fist became involved in activism as a young woman when she became
an early and vocal proponent of the anti-War movement in the late
1960s and early 1970s, even suggested that Clinton might’ve been
“more dangerous” than Trump.
Did
she really say that Hillary was more dangerous than Trump?
“Not
exactly, but I don’t mind that quote,” she says. “I
did think she was very, very dangerous. We would still be fracking,
we would be at war [if she was president]. It wouldn’t be much
smoother. Look what happened under Obama that we didn’t notice.”
Though
she supported Clinton’s first bid for the senate in 2001, Sarandon
said her support for Clinton evaporated when the then-senator voted
in favor of the war in Iraq*.
It
is often overlooked that in 2001, Sarandon supported Hillary
Clinton’s run for the Senate. There are photos of them posing
chummily together, grinning. Then Clinton voted for the war in Iraq
and it all went downhill. During
the last election, Sarandon supported Bernie Sanders, then wouldn’t
support Clinton after she won the nomination, and now all the
moderates hate her, to the extent, she says, that she had to change
her phone number because people she identifies as Hillary trolls sent
her threatening messages. “I got from Hillary people ‘I hope your
crotch is grabbed’, ‘I hope you’re raped’. Misogynistic
attacks. Recently, I said ‘I stand with Dreamers’ [children
brought illegally to the US, whose path to legal citizenship – an
Obama-era provision – Trump has threatened to revoke] and that
started another wave.”
Wait,
from the right?
In
a jab at her critics on the left, Sarandon said she isn’t worried
about the threats or the criticism from people who bizarrely blame
her for throwing the election to Trump. Instead, she’s worried that
the left’s refusal to reckon with the true nature of the problem –
that the DNC rigged an election to favor a flawed, unpopular
candidate – will harm progressive causes in the long run.
“Well,
that’s why we’re going to lose again if we depend on the DNC [the
Democratic National Committee]. Because the amount of denial … I
mean it’s very flattering to think that I, on my own, cost the
election. That my little voice was the deciding factor.”
Is
it upsetting to be attacked?
“It’s
upsetting to me more from the point of view of thinking they haven’t
learned. I don’t need to be vindicated.”
But
it’s upsetting that they’re still feeding the same misinformation
to people. When Obama got the nomination, 25% of [Hillary’s] people
didn’t vote for him. Only 12% of Bernie’s people didn’t vote
for her.”
But
she didn’t advocate voting for Hillary! Come on.
“Hmm?”
Didn’t
she advocate voting for Jill Stein?
“I
didn’t advocate people voting for anything. I said get your
information, I’m going to vote for change, because I was hoping
that Stein was going to get whatever percentage she needed – but I
knew she wasn’t going to make the difference in the election.”
Luckily,
Sarandon said her friends have stood by her, at least.
Has
she lost friends over all this? “No. My friends have a right to
their opinions. It’s
disappointing but that’s their business. It’s like in the lead-up
to Vietnam, and then later they say: ‘You were right.’ Or
strangely, some of my gay friends were like: ‘Oh, I just feel bad
for [Clinton]. And I said: ‘She’s not authentic. She’s been
terrible to gay people for the longest time. She’s an opportunist.’
And then I’m like: ‘OK, let’s not talk about it any more.’”
Still,
I think while there was vast political error on both sides, the
inability of Sarandon and her ilk to embrace the lesser of two evils
permitted the greater of the two evils to rise. And
yet I like Sarandon. It takes real courage to go against the mob. Her
inconsistencies are a little wild, but in the age of social-media
enforced conformity, I have never met anyone so uninterested in
toeing the line.
When
it comes to deportations, Sarandon said a hypothetical Clinton
administration probably have continued with Obama’s strategy of
“sneakily” deporting immigrants.
Given
his record on immigration and extrajudicial drone-enabled murder,
Sarandon said she was shocked that he won the Nobel Peace Prize.
It
seems absurd to argue that healthcare, childcare, taxation for the
non-rich wouldn’t be better now under President Clinton, and that’s
before we get to the threat of deportation hanging over millions of
immigrants. “She
would’ve done it the way Obama did it,” says Sarandon, “which
was sneakily. He
deported more people than have been deported now. How he got the
Nobel peace prize I don’t know. I think it was very important to
have a black family in the White House and I think some of the stuff
he did was good. He tried really hard about healthcare. But he didn’t
go all the way because of big pharma.”
This
isn’t the first time Sarandon has suggested that Clinton could be a
greater national security risk than Trump. She made similar comments
in June 2016, just as Clinton was clinching the nomination. At that
time, Trump’s “America First” foreign policy pledge – which
was based on a philosophy of noninterventionism – was arguably more
dovish than his rival.
Of
course, Trump has pivoted away from that stance since taking office,
authorizing more troop deployments in Afghanistan and threatening
North Korea with nuclear annihilation, chagrining many of his early
supporters.
=============================
* Sarandon brak met Clinton toen deze zich in 2001 voor de illegale oorlog tegen Afghanistan verklaarde. Durden noemt hier Irak, echter dat moet zoals gezegd Afghanistan zijn, de illegale oorlog tegen Irak begon in 2003. (overigens ook een illegale oorlog waar Clinton voorstander van was…..)
PS: vergeet niet dat Hillary Clinton zich tijdens de campagne uitsprak voor het eerste gebruik van kernwapens bij een aanval van de VS, waarmee zij het pad verliet, waar kernwapens ‘alleen dienden als afschrikkingswapen’, iets waar ook Trump zich nu ‘positief’ over uitlaat (uiteraard droomden het Pentagon en presidenten als Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush sr., Clinton en Bush jr, al jaren over een aanval door de VS met kernwapens……)
30 years ago today in Venezuela: the mass rebellion against neoliberalism known as the Caracazo, which ended in the massacre of 300 to 3,000, most dumped in mass graves. Today, neoliberals claim the mantle of human rights as they try to do the same. Never forget! 
Nederlands
English
Русский
Español
简体中文
Français
Deutsch
हिन्दी
Italiano
Português