A 21st Century Cold War Calls for 21st Century Propaganda

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

Introduction by Lila York

Rainer Shea has published an eye-opening expose on US government propaganda that every American should read.

It led me to the conclusion that Americans need to take action without delay to end it. In brief, the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 made it illegal for the USgovernment to propagandize or intentionally lie to the American public. In 2012 neocons in the House sneaked an item into the NDAA  bill that nullifies that act, and Obama signed it into law. Almost overnight the network news programs and the nation's leading newspapers became Deep State pro -war propaganda machines. What followed was the US-sponsored coup in Ukraine, the downing of MH 17 over Ukraine, the US inspired poisoning of the Skripals in England, and the bombings of  Syria and Yemen - all of it explained to the public in whole-cloth lies. Since July of 2013 with the secret passage of this unconstitutional and nefarious act every statement issued by the US government and spewed out via CNN, MSNBC, Fox, The New York Times and The Washington Post has been CIA-approved propaganda feed. The result has been more wars for them and a loss of civil liberties for the people.

We are at a critical tipping point with the recent statement of the FBI declaring that dissent is a crime (somehow dissent, now re-labeled "conspiracy theory", gives "material support to terrorists ). In other words, anyone who does not swallow the government and CIA - issued propaganda whole is now subject to monitoring, prosecution, and imprisonment by the intelligence agencies. At the very least those agencies can compel IRS audits or exercise any number of practices to make a person's life a living hell .  So - to summarize, the government admits to intentionally spreading false information to the American public, then authorizes the justice department to prosecute any citizen  who questions the veracity of  the false information.  The citizens of the United States needs to stand up to this and demand that A) The FBI statement criminalizing dissenting opinion be immediately revoked and B) the Smith- Mundt Act be restored to its original content and intention. Call your reps. Tweet this, if you are into that. email it. Do something.

—Lila York

Sneaky imperialist Barack Obama bloviating before Congress, largely a shameless assembly of fellow warmongers, plutocrat shills, and US supremacists.

[dropcap]W[/dropcap]hen it became apparent that U.S. global hegemony was being replaced by a multipolar world, the American ruling class decided it would be necessary to restart a 21st century cold war with Russia and China. Even before this new level of warfare became the priority, it was apparent to U.S. elites that if a long-term era of tensions between great powers were to be engaged in, it would require much greater governmental control over information provided to the domestic population.

This was the reasoning I believe the U.S. was using when it carried out the early-to-mid 2010s policies which have since led to a new cold war. The story of how the current cold war started follows in the same pattern as the run-up to the last one during the 1940s: the emergence of a threat to U.S. hegemony, a campaign to demonize Russia and its allies, and a period of escalating tensions, correlated with the creation of a new propaganda apparatus by the U.S. government.

Expanding propaganda power to prepare for upcoming geopolitical maneuvers

To assemble the propaganda arsenal that it would need throughout the first cold war, the U.S. created the CIA, an unaccountable institution that began covertly influencing world politics from its founding in 1947. In 1948 the CIA created a covert action wing, called the Office of Policy Coordination, which was led by Wall Street lawyer Frank Wisner. The office’s secret charter described its purposes as:

“…propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation procedures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world.”

Through these tools, the CIA has since been spreading psychological operations (psyops) within American foreign propaganda outlets like Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia, as well as assimilating much of the American press through projects like Operation Mockingbird.

With 2013’s amendment of key parts of the Smith-Mundt Act, the government freed this propaganda network to covertly broadcast messages to the American people with official legal impunity. Prior to then, the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 had banned the domestic dissemination of U.S. government-produced propaganda. But when representatives Mac Thornberry and Adam Smith passed the “The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012” by slipping it into the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, a routine piece of legislation that gets voted on and signed annually, that restriction was lifted. On July 2nd of 2013, the government finally began spreading its propaganda messages under the new rules.

The change was immediately visible. In July of 2013, John Hudson of Foreign Policy reported that the U.S. had begun the “unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption.” Since then, the repeal of the propaganda ban has created many strange and troubling trends for the American media, such as the emergence of a revolving door between intelligence officials and cable news stations, the government assimilation of formerly independent outlets like Vice News, and the enablement of Silicon Valley oligarchs like Jeff Bezos to partner with the military/intelligence complex while simultaneously exerting control over the media outlets they own (The Washington Post, in this case).



“Since 2013, newsrooms across the country, of both the mainstream and ‘alternative’ variety, have been notably skewed towards the official government narrative, with few outside a handful of independently-funded media outlets bothering to question those narratives’ veracity”, Whitney Webb of Mint Press News wrote last year about the propaganda ban repeal.

“While this has long been a reality for the Western media (see John Pilger’s 2011 documentary ‘The War You Don’t See’), the use of government-approved narratives and sources from government-funded groups have become much more overt than in years past.”

It’s clear that the motivation behind the repeal of the ban was at least partly to get the U.S. government ready to manage a society which would soon be in an escalating state of great power conflict. In his initial press release on the bill, Thornberry said:

“We continue to face a multitude of threats and we need to be able to counter them in a multitude of ways. Communication is among the most important. This outdated law ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible and transparent way. Congress has a responsibility to fix the situation.”

At a moment when the U.S. empire was already in a state of rapid decline, and when Russia and China were subsequently turning into more effective perceived adversaries, I suspect this statement from a House neocon reflected a larger plan among the ruling class to create a propaganda apparatus for the coming new era of warfare.

Indeed, in the last six years it’s been very much necessary for the U.S. empire to expand its efforts to control the sentiments of its own citizens. This recent escalation of government-engineered mass persuasion has involved not just propaganda, but censorship as well. And its emergence six years ago correlates with the U.S.-created proxy wars that started the new cold war.

The ramifications of the U.S. coup in Ukraine and regime change war in Syria

The fact that another cold war between the U.S. and Russia was imminent became clear when Washington began its latest attempt at regime change in Syria. In 2011, the terrorist groups that the U.S. had been arming and training started an ongoing campaign to destabilize Syria, having provoked armed conflict with the Syrian government in an attempt at violent revolt. Washington’s proxy war on Syria was motivated both by a desireto advance Israel’s interests, and by its larger-scale “need” to maintain control over Eurasia amid China’s rise. Naturally, Russia’s interests in Syria clashed with those of the U.S, and naturally this wouldn’t be the end of Washington’s provocations.

2013’s propaganda ban repeal, which served the U.S. in its efforts that year to manufacture popular belief in a supposed chemical attack by Assad on the citizens of Syria, also served Washington in its February 2014 coup in Ukraine. As Strategic Culture’s Eric Zuesse has written about the Ukraine coup’s origins:

“The network behind this coup had actually started planning for the coup back in 2011. That’s when Eric Schmidt of Google, and Jared Cohen, also now of Google but still continuing though unofficially as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s chief person tasked to plan ‘popular movements’ to overthrow both Yanukovych in Ukraine, and Assad in Syria.”

These and the other pieces of evidence that Ukraine’s regime change was U.S.-engineered were hidden from Western media consumers, who only heard about a Ukrainian “democratic revolution” that prompted a heinous act of aggression in Ukraine by Vladimir Putin.

In reality, it was the U.S. that had caused the crisis in Ukraine, and it’s the U.S. that had consequently initiated a new cold war. After the Ukraine coup, Russia had reason to fear NATO nuclear missiles not just near, but on, Russia’s border. And Victoria Nuland, Barack Obama’s central agent behind the coup, had made surethat the new person to head Ukraine’s government would be the far-right and rabidly anti-Russian Arseniy Yatsenyuk. As a result, Ukraine’s government has since been a fascistic and aggressive antagonist towards Russia, with the Nazi-tied regime carrying out anti-Russian war provocations, inflaming armed conflict with pro-Russian separatists at the behest of the Trump administration, and engaging in ethnic cleansing against Ukraine’s Russian-speaking communities.


US engineered Coup in Ukraine 2014

Published on Jul 22, 2018

This video is a transcript of US State Dept. Spokeswoman Jen Psaki being questioned regarding a leaked phone conversation between top US State Dept. officials, where they appear to be plotting to install a new government in Ukraine, followed by audio of the leaked conversation.

In this light, the return of the cold war tensions was not initiated by Russia. Indeed, Putin’s 2008 intervention in Georgia and his 2014 intervention in Ukraine were largely done in response to NATO’s aggressive expansionism, and Russia’s efforts to militarily protect Syria and Venezuela have also been the result of the U.S. empire’s belligerence. The new cold war is, rather, the result of America’s operations to strong-arm China and its allies Russia, SyriaVenezuelaIranCuba, and north Korea into submission. And the catalyst for this potential run-up to nuclear conflict was the 2014 regime change project in Ukraine, whose surrounding atmosphere of intensive state-manufactured propaganda has reflected the nature of the years since then.

An empire of illusion

Talking from my experiences and observations as an American, the onset of this new cold war has produced a dystopian new era, one where reality is constantly being twisted by powerful actors who seek to perpetuate a war that has no end in sight. This is a more extreme version of the War on Terror, whose dozen years of existence prior to the start of the new cold war had already primed the American people for a scenario where they would be told to fear not just terrorists, but also the world’s other major superpowers.

The messaging campaigns used to manufacture consent for all of these war campaigns have been carried out both through the dissemination of state propaganda itself, and through the suppression of information that contradicts this propaganda. “RT’s reports often characterize the United States as a ‘surveillance state’ and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use.

RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national debt. Some of RT’s hosts have compared the United States to Imperial Rome and have predicted that government corruption and “corporate greed” will lead to US financial collapse.”

This McCarthyist view of the critics of capitalism and imperialism is one that U.S. intelligence agencies, as well as the online companies they hold influence over, have been applying to how they treat journalists who object to the war effort. Since the media sensation around supposed Russian interference in U.S. elections began in 2016, the world has experienced the biggest wave of Internet censorship in history. The algorithm manipulations and content purges from the online companies have accompanied ambitious new projects from the U.S.and E.U. to police the Internet, which threaten to constrain Internet freedom all around the globe.

After Facebook’s big purge of alternative media accounts in October 2018, a top neocon insider promised that the shutdown of the open Internet will go much further. Jamie Fly, director of the Asia program at the influential U.S. and NATO-funded think tank the German Marshall Fund, stated that:

“Russia, China, and other foreign states take advantage of our open political system. They can invent stories that get repeated and spread through different sites. So we are just starting to push back. Just this last week Facebook began starting to take down sites. So this is just the beginning.”

Neocon war pushers like Jamie Fly represent the visible ugly face of a sociopathic order. If this planet becomes a radioactive pile, remember it's guys like Jamie Fly who did it.

Fly and the other power players within the empire are attempting to influence world events by controlling the flow of information. It’s crucial to them that the Western public view the current geopolitical developments through the American-centric, pro-imperialist lens through which the government presents current events. Having fully expanded their propaganda operations, they’re now in the process of de-platforming the opposition press, which is their only obstacle to total control over the narrative.

However, while the empire may try to insulate those within its sphere of control from reality, reality itself is remarkably stubborn. The CIA’s propaganda, sophisticated as it is, can’t reverse the trend of imperial collapse that the United States is experiencing. No matter how much the think tanks, intelligence agencies, and corporations work to shut down dissenting voices, climate change and other threats to the system will continue to progress. The coming years and decades will be a period of great instability, where the collapse of global capitalism and the accelerating ecological crisis will upend civilization as we know it.

During this upheaval, we can’t let society’s collective mind be controlled by a circle of oligarchs who intend to deceive us into remaining docile in the face of emerging dystopia. We must continue to seize control of the narrative and take society in a different direction.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
  Rainer Shea uses the written word to deconstruct establishment propaganda and to promote meaningful political action. His articles can also be found at Revolution Dispatch. 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

Read it in your language • Lealo en su idioma • Lisez-le dans votre langue • Lies es in Deiner Sprache • Прочитайте это на вашем языке • 用你的语言阅读

[google-translator]

black-horizontal




Patrick Lawrence warned us about the Russiagate hoax in 2016, but no one listened.

Please make sure these dispatches reach as many readers as possible. Share with kin, friends and workmates and ask them to do likewise.

Patrick Lawrence

In July of 2016 the estimable Patrick Lawrence tried to alert the Democrat sheeple by publishing a thorough (and prescient) article on Salon, a leading mainstream liberal publication, laying out the ways a cynical and utterly corrupt Democrat leadership had essentially scammed the rank and file while burdening the nation and the world with a dangerous hoax. The toxic fumes from that decomposing McCarthyite ghoul, by now several times convincingly debunked, including by special counsel Robert Mueller, ironically the man in charge of proving its validity, continue to plague relations between the US and Russia, while slowly choking dissident speech behind the cloak of defending truth.



Shades of the Cold War: How the DNC fabricated a Russian hacker conspiracy to deflect blame for its email scandal

Leaked revelations of the DNC's latest misconduct bear a disturbing resemblance to Cold War red-baiting
July 26, 2016 2:14AM (UTC)  / SALON.COM

[dropcap]N[/dropcap]ow wait a minute, all you upper-case “D” Democrats. A flood light suddenly shines on your party apparatus, revealing its grossly corrupt machinations to fix the primary process and sink the Sanders campaign, and within a day you are on about the evil Russians having hacked into your computers to sabotage our elections — on behalf of Donald Trump, no less?

Is this a joke? Are you kidding? Is nothing beneath your dignity? Is this how lowly you rate the intelligence of American voters? My answers to these, in order: yes, but the kind one cannot laugh at; no, we’re not kidding; no, we will do anything, and yes, we have no regard whatsoever for Americans so long as we can connive them out of their votes every four years.

Patrick Lawrence sounded the alarm in 2016, but it fell on deaf ears. Why? Has the machinery of disinformation aimed at Americans reached its apogee? And why isn't that regarded as a malign conspiracy? 

Clowns. Subversives. Do you know who you remind me of? I will tell you: Nixon, in his famously red-baiting campaign — a disgusting episode — against the right-thinking Helen Gahagan Douglas during his first run for the Senate, in 1950. Your political tricks are as transparent and anti-democratic as his, it is perfectly fair to say.

I confess to a heated reaction to events since last Friday among the Democrats, specifically in the Democratic National Committee. I should briefly explain these for the benefit of readers who have better things to do than watch the ever more insulting farce foisted upon us as legitimate political procedure.

The Sanders people have long charged that the DNC has had its fingers on the scale, as one of them put it the other day, in favor of Hillary Clinton’s nomination. The prints were everywhere — many those of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who has repeatedly been accused of anti-Sanders bias. Schultz, do not forget, co-chaired Clinton’s 2008 campaign against Barack Obama. That would be enough to disqualify her as the DNC’s chair in any society that takes ethics seriously, but it is not enough in our great country. Chairwoman she has been for the past five years. 

Wasserman: Steering the Dems machine to its shameless destination.

Last Friday WikiLeaks published nearly 20,000 DNC email messages providing abundant proof that Sanders and his staff were right all along. The worst of these, involving senior DNC officers, proposed Nixon-esque smears having to do with everything from ineptitude within the Sanders campaign to Sanders as a Jew in name only and an atheist by conviction.

Wasserman fell from grace on Monday. Other than this, Democrats from President Obama to Clinton and numerous others atop the party’s power structure have had nothing to say, as in nothing, about this unforgivable breach.They have, rather, been full of praise for Wasserman Schultz. Brad Marshall, the D.N.C.’s chief financial officer, now tries to deny that his Jew-baiting remark referred to Sanders. Good luck, Brad: Bernie is the only Jew in the room.

The caker came on Sunday, when Robby Mook, Clinton’s campaign manager, appeared on ABC’s “This Week” and (covering all bases) CNN’s “State of the Union” to assert that the D.N.C.’s mail was hacked “by the Russians for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.” He knows this — knows it in a matter of 24 hours — because “experts” — experts he will never name — have told him so.

Here is Mook on the CNN program. Listen carefully:

What’s disturbing to us is that experts are telling us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, and other experts are now saying that Russians are releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump.

Is that what disturbs you, Robby? Interesting. Unsubstantiated hocus-pocus, not the implications of these events for the integrity of Democratic nominations and the American political process? The latter is the more pressing topic, Robby. You are far too long on anonymous experts for my taste, Robby. And what kind of expert, now that I think of it, is able to report to you as to the intentions of Russian hackers — assuming for a sec that this concocted narrative has substance?

Making lemonade out of a lemon, the Clinton campaign now goes for a twofer. Watch as it advances the Russians-did-it thesis on the basis of nothing, then shoots the messenger, then associates Trump with its own mess — and, finally, gets to ignore the nature of its transgression (which any paying-attention person must consider grave).

Preposterous, readers. Join me, please, in having absolutely none of it. There is no “Russian actor” at the bottom of this swamp, to put my position bluntly. You will never, ever be offered persuasive evidence otherwise.

Reluctantly, I credit the Clinton campaign and the DNC with reading American paranoia well enough such that they may make this junk stick. In a clear sign the entire crowd-control machine is up and running, The New York Times had a long, unprofessional piece about Russian culprits in its Monday editions. It followed Mook’s lead faithfully: not one properly supported fact, not one identified “expert,” and more conditional verbs than you’ve had hot dinners — everything cast as “could,” “might,” “appears,” “would,” “seems,” “may.” Nothing, once again, as to the very serious implications of this affair for the American political process.

Now comes the law. The FBI just announced that it will investigate — no, not the DNC’s fraudulent practices (which surely breach statutes), but “those who pose a threat in cyberspace.” The House Intelligence Committee simultaneously promised to do (and leave undone) the same. This was announced, please note, by the ranking Democrat on the Republican-controlled committee.

Bearing many memories of the Cold War’s psychological warp — and if you are too young to remember, count your blessings — it is the invocation of the Russians that sends me over the edge. My bones grow weary at the thought of living through a 21st century variant. Halifax, anyone?

Here we come to a weird reversal of roles.

We must take the last few days’ events as a signal of what Clinton’s policy toward Russia will look like should she prevail in November. I warned in this space after the NATO summit in Warsaw earlier this month that Cold War II had just begun. Turning her party’s latest disgrace into an occasion for another round of Russophobia is mere preface, but in it you can read her commitment to the new crusade. 

Trump, to make this work, must be blamed for his willingness to negotiate with Moscow. This is now among his sins. Got that? Anyone who says he will talk to the Russians has transgressed the American code. Does this not make Trump the Helen Gahagan Douglas of the piece? Does this not make Hillary Clinton more than a touch Nixonian?

I am developing nitrogen bends from watching the American political spectacle. One can hardly tell up from down. Which way for a breath of air?


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Patrick Lawrence is Salon’s foreign affairs columnist. A longtime correspondent abroad, chiefly for the International Herald Tribune and The New Yorker, he is an essayist, critic, editor and contributing writer at The Nation. His most recent book is “Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century”. Follow him on Twitter. Support him at Patreon.com. His web site is patricklawrence.us

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal




Christian Science Monitor files decent article on US-Iran confrontation

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.



Editor's Note
Readers may be forgiven for chuckling at our headline. Yes, it has become news, in the tradition of that old standard, "Man bites dog," when a major newspaper in the US discharges its journalistic function with probity and professionalism. Especially in regard to the nasty developments in the Middle East, where any day now we may be faced with the stuff of nightmares.

While massively ignorant, insouciant Americans continue to go about their merry business without fullly realising the real danger posed by the Trump administration's obsessive bellicosity towards Iran, the stakes keep getting higher and higher. The constant provocations and vituperations (started by the US, which has also unlawfully applied a murderous sanctions regime leaving Iran no option but to respond), have finally put the US-led bloc and Iran into a hard-to-avoid collision course, whose consequences for Iran, the Middle East in general, the already wounded planetary ecology, and the global economy are simply mind-boggling.

This is bad enough, the work of morons, bullies, liars, and certifiable sociopaths, a pattern that by now defines the highest echelons of the US government in this period of clear moral and political decomposition, but things could easily get much worse and a lot uglier—as they usually do in wars—especially if the US, long accustomed to fighting wars "on the cheap" in terms of real casualties and actual enemy retaliation, were to suffer some significant losses in its pricey military hardware or armed forces personnel. Can anyone imagine the howls for revenge, for Iran's nuclear obliteration, from the criminal ly sanctimonious politicians and media hyenas, if such a thing came to pass? I certainly can, and I shudder at the thought because the carnage would be swift and horrific. A nation long soaked in self-flattering ignorance, hubris, and malignant exceptionalism, not to mention armed to the teeth, and looking to show it's still the big cock on the block, is a prime candidate to detonate Armageddon. Piles of radioactive ash in many continents may not be a wild exaggeration.

In  this terrible context, the behaviour of the US press, even at this late hour, when some sense should have percolated, continues to be abysmal.  It doesn't help that "the adults in the room", organisations like the New York Times or the WaPo, or the leading TV networks, should be leading the warmongering chorus instead of calming things down, a moral obligation all the more pressing due to the near total absence of an antiwar movement in the United States. I will not ask here whether these people—to paraphrase Joe Welch's legendary question to Joe McCarthy—have any decency left.  We know the answer to that. But has the media industry, including its owning barons, the Murdochs, the Redstones, the Sulzbergers, the Bezos, reached such a level of imbecility and narrow self-seeking that they have also lost their instinct for survival?

It is in this squalid context that I note this morning (thanks to our colleague at Moon of Alabama) that The Christian Science Monitor has come out with a piece that, considering the American media's record on this matter, is remarkable for its truth and balance, even if the overall picture remains painfully short of what we would have liked to see in a piece dedicated to explaining not just where we are at this point, but how we got there. Obviously the staff writer, Scott Peterson, had a tall order to fill. This may explain why he apparently came close to "playing it down the middle", almost sounding as if Iran, for decades a demonstrable victim of Anglo-American imperialism, was as guilty of this horrid mess as the sordid figures in Washington, London, Tel Aviv, Ryad, and other Western and Middle East capitals openly planning for its destruction. Blaming both sides is an old conceit of US journalism, forever chasing the illusory "objectivity" that reality continues to deny in most cases of imperial criminality.

That said, my thanks to Peterson, and the Christian Science Monitor editors.  I hope the example catches. Below excerpts from this article.

—Patrice Greanville

Dateline: 12 July 2019
US-Iran escalation: It’s message-sending, but the risks are high

[The Christian Science Monitor]



WHY WE WROTE THIS

The U.S. and Iran each want something. But they are expressing that through sanctions and military provocations. How high can they escalate tensions before it slips out of their control?

Colossally expensive carriers, instruments to project power and intimidate little nations, have long been the signature of the American empire in practically all latitudes. The official CSM caption reads: "A pilot speaks to a crew member by an F/A-18 fighter jet on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea on June 3. In response to harsher U.S. sanctions, Iran has broken through uranium enrichment and stockpile limits set by the 2015 nuclear deal."  (Jon Gambrell/AP)

July 12, 2019

Another day, another step in the apparently inexorable escalation of U.S.-Iran tensions that has brought the arch-adversaries to the brink of war since President Donald Trump last year withdrew from the nuclear deal.

The escalation has included a U.S. “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign that has crippled Iran’s economy and targeted its supreme leader and elite Revolutionary Guard; incremental Iranian violations of the landmark 2015 deal; Iran shooting down a $130 million U.S. intelligence drone; and Mr. Trump at the last minute calling off a retaliatory surgical strike – while planes were reportedly mid-route.

The result: the U.S. and Iran have not been this close to open conflict since the 1980s.

Which raises two very pressing questions: What is the psychology of escalation at play? And how far can this tit-for-tat trajectory go without stumbling into a war that leaders on both sides say they don’t want?

Mr. Trump states that his aim is to pressure the Islamic Republic to negotiate a new deal that includes limiting Iran’s missile forces and curtailing regional proxies. But hawkish aides like his national security adviser, John Bolton, have argued for years for military strikes on Iran and regime change.

For their part, Iranian officials vow that they will not negotiate under pressure, state that America can’t be trusted, and declare – as Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei recently did – that talking to the Trump administration would be poison “twice as deadly.”

And while Iran stuck to the nuclear deal for a year after the U.S. withdrawal – imploring the European Union, Russia, and China to uphold their side of the bargain, even if the U.S. did not, by providing Iran with economic benefits in exchange for Iran curtailing its nuclear program – analysts say the consensus has grown in Iran to take action.

PLEASE READ THE REST AT THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. CLICK HERE.

 

This is an article from our series on septic media


 


About the Author
Scott Peterson is a staff writer with the Christian Science Monitor.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES, UNLESS EXPRESSLY NOTED,  BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS




Stooge Time 2019

BE SURE TO PASS THESE ARTICLES TO FRIENDS AND KIN. A LOT DEPENDS ON THIS. DO YOUR PART.

ABOVE: Brian Williams, (1) a confirmed faker, and professional disinformer attached to NBC, is one of thousands of well paid media critters vetted to do the empire's bidding around the clock. Many Americans are now seeing—at last—that the mainstream media suck, but they continue to imagine, wistfully, there wass once a "golden age of US jounalism".  That's just another self-delusion. For his misleading labour, Williams gets about $10MM a year. He's part of that "10%" enabling the "1%" oppressing everyone.


[dropcap]T[/dropcap]his writer remembers one afternoon in the late 70s. My business partner and I went over to the local pub for a sandwich and a brew. As we sat at the bar, the pub manager Bob turned on the television and announced " Stooge Time!" The men sitting at the bar all applauded , and we had to sit through this nonsense that was only funny and cute when we were kids.

Fast forward 40 years and one still has to sit through the nonsense when viewing mainstream news shows OR the Congress on -Span. Stooge time is once again the choice of the masses. First and foremost you have the millionaire and mega millionaire ( so called ) journalists who push across the news only fit for an empire. Most of what they shovel your way is Republican VS. Democrat food fights, never on the most important issues we working stiffs should be concerned with. No mention of this obscene militarism and military spending ( over 50% of our federal taxes ) that bankrupts our economy. No mention of the need for real National Health Care for ALL without the predatory private insurers being involved. {Please note: Why should the millionaire and uber rich journalists care when they can easily afford what are labeled ' Cadillac health insurance plans'?} Why should the Congress people care when it's on our dime that they get great health coverage? Moving on, issues like having the uber rich pay what their class paid in the 50s , 60s and 70s when the top federal income tax bracket was anywhere from 90% to 78%, and not the current less than 40% one.{ Of course, NO ONE actually paid or pays what their bracket dictates- that is why they have accountants to chip away through deductions.} All in all, the stooges we see on the boob tube news shows and the floor of Congress really do not have a clue about what we working stiffs deal with. Yes, sincere politicians like Ms. Ocasio Cortez and Bernie Sanders ( to name a few ) do care, but they still reside under that ' Big Tent ' corrupt party. As for the other party, well, they are so far removed from working stiffs....

This empire loves to have their bought and paid for media make heroes of uber rich celebrities, including our sports stars and politicos. Most of these people, even the few who truly care about we working stiffs, do NOT live as we do. They all don't have to worry about being a few paychecks from the street, or about deciding how to care for their bodies and teeth for lack of viable and full insurance coverage. These folks won't worry about feeding their kids properly or making the next mortgage or rental payment. All any of we working stiffs can get from the uber rich is the usual LIP SERVICE!  Thus, phony populist demagogues like Trump ( Make Amerika Great Again for the Few) and Obama ( Hope for the Change that never comes) travel in the same circles... insulated from the rabble who continually vote and support them. Why not? After all, it's Stooge Time!!

PA Farruggio
June 2019

(1) In February 2015, Williams was suspended for six months from the broadcast for misrepresenting his experience in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. At the time, his salary was $10 million a year, with a five-year contract signed in December 2014.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ' It's the Empire... Stupid ' radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at paf1222@bellsouth.net.




The Russian Peace Threat examines Russophobia, American Exceptionalism and other urgent topics

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

PLEASE COMMENT ON OUR FACEBOOK GROUP OR IN THE OPINION WINDOW BELOW.
All image captions, pull quotes, appendices, etc. by the editors not the authors. 

black-horizontal




Calling Assange a Narcissist Misses the Point

Another important dispatch from The Greanville Post. Be sure to share it widely.


by Patrick Cockburn

Unless the truth is told about the real nature of these wars then people outside the war zones will never understand why they go on so long and are never won...



“Oh yeah, look at those dead bastards,” and “ha, ha, I hit them” say the pilots of a US Apache helicopter in jubilant conversation as they machine-gun Iraqi civilians on the ground in Baghdad on 12 July 2007.

A wounded man, believed to be the Reuters photographer, 22-year-old Namir Noor-Eldeen, crawls towards a van. “Come on buddy, all you have to do is pick up a weapon,” says one of the helicopter crew, eager to resume the attack. A hellfire missile is fired and a pilot says: “Look at that bitch go!” The photographer and his driver are killed.Later the helicopter crew are told over the radio that they have killed 11 Iraqis and a small child has been injured. “Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into battle,” comments somebody about the carnage below.

Except there was no “battle” and all those who died were civilians, though the Pentagon claimed they were gunmen. The trigger-happy pilots had apparently mistaken a camera for a rocket propelled grenade launcher. Journalists in Baghdad, including myself, were from the start sceptical about the official US story because insurgents with weapons in their hands were unlikely to be standing chatting to each other in the street with an American helicopter overhead. As on many similar occasions in Iraq, our doubts were strong but we could not prove that the civilians had not been carrying weapons in the face of categorical denials from the US Department of Defence.

It was known that a video of the killings taken from the helicopter existed, but the Pentagon refused to release it under the Freedom of Information Act. Plenty of people were being killed all over Iraq at the time and the incident would soon have been forgotten, except by the families of the dead, if a US soldier called Chelsea Manning had not handed over a copy of the official video to WikiLeakswhich published it in 2010.

The exposure of the Baghdad helicopter killings was the first of many revelations which explain why Julian Assange has been pursued for so long by the US and British governments. The claim by Theresa May echoed by other ministers that “in the United Kingdom, no one is above the law” is clearly an evasion of the real reasons why such efforts have been made to detain him on both sides of the Atlantic.

Jeremy Corbyn is correct to say that the affair is all about “the extradition of Julian Assange to the US for exposing evidence of atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan.” But, within hours of Assange’s detention, it was clear that nobody much cared about innocent people dying in the streets of Baghdad or in the villages of Afghanistan and Assange has already become a political weapon in the poisonous political confrontation over Brexit with Corbyn’s support for Assange enabling Conservatives to claim that he is a security risk.

Lost in this dog-fight is what Assange and WikiLeaks really achieved and why it was of great importance in establishing the truth about wars being fought on our behalf in which hundreds of thousands of people have been killed.

This is what Daniel Ellsberg did when he released the Pentagon Papers about the US political and military involvement in Vietnam between 1945 and 1967. Like Assange, he exposed official lies and was accused of putting American lives in danger though his accusers were typically elusive about how this was done.

But unless the truth is told about the real nature of these wars then people outside the war zones will never understand why they go on so long and are never won. Governments routinely lie in wartime and it is essential to expose what they are really doing. I remember looking at pictures of craters as big as houses in an Afghan village where 147 people had died in 2009 and which the US defence secretary claimed had been caused by the Taliban throwing grenades. In one small area called Qayara outside Mosul in in 2016-17, the US air force admitted to killing one civilian but a meticulous examination of the facts by The New York Times showed that the real figure was 43 dead civilians including 19 men, eight women and 16 children aged 14 or under.

These are the sort of facts that the US and UK governments try to conceal and which Assange and WikiLeaks have repeatedly revealed. Readers should keep this in mind when they are told that Assange has narcissistic personality or was not treating his cat properly. If his personal vices were a hundred times more serious than alleged, would they really counterbalance – and perhaps even discredit – the monstrosities he sought to unmask?

Support free-thinking journalism and subscribe to Independent MindsThe US government documents published by WikiLeaks are about the real workings of power. Take the Hillary Clinton emails published in 2016: much of the media attention has plugged into conspiracy theories about Russian involvement or, until the recent publication of the Mueller Report, the possible complicity of the Trump election campaign with the Russians. Many Democrats and anti-Trump journalists managed to persuade themselves that Assange had helped lose Hillary Clinton the election, though a glance at a history of the campaign showed that she was quite capable of doing this all by herself by not campaigning in toss-up states.

But look at what the emails tell us what the way the world really works. There is, for instance, a US State Department memo dated 17 August 2014 – just over a week after Isis had launched its offensive against the Kurds and Yazidis in Iraq that led to the butchery, rape and enslavement of so many.

It was a time when the US was adamantly denying that Saudi Arabia and Qatar had any connection with Isis and similar jihadi movements like al-Qaeda. But the leaked memo, which is drawn from “western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region” tells us that they really knew different. It says: “We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region.”

This is important information about the level of priority the US gave to keeping in with its Saudi and Qatari allies while it was supposedly fighting the “war on terror”. This had been true since 9/11 and remains true today. But in much of the British media such issues are barely considered and the debate is focused firmly on the reasons why rape charges were not brought against Assange by Swedish courts and his culpability in taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Anybody who highlights the importance of the work which Assange and WikiLeaks has done is likely to be accused of being light-heartedly dismissive of the accusations of rape.

Assange is likely to pay a higher price than Ellsberg for his exposure of government secrets. The Pentagon Papers were published when the media was becoming freer across the world while now it is on the retreat as authoritarian governments replace democratic ones and democratic governments become more authoritarian.

The fate of Assange will be a good guide as to how far we are going down this road and the degree to which freedom of expression is threatened in Britain at a time of deepening political crisis.

The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff we publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for our website, which will get you an email notification for everything we publish.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Patrick Cockburn is the author of  The Rise of Islamic State: ISIS and the New Sunni Revolution.

Creative Commons License
THIS WORK IS LICENSED UNDER A Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License





 

Be sure to get the most unique history of the Russo-American conflict now spanning almost a century!  The book that every American should read.

Nuclear Armageddon or peace? That is the question.
And here’s the book that answers it.
CLICK HERE to buy The Russian Peace Threat.