Devil in the Details… Media, Crisis Actors & Handlers at Parkland Florida School Shooting [video]

This is a “don’t miss” video if you desire to unravel the tangled web. It will leave you shaking your head in disbelief.

Randy Maughans has analyzed the media footage of interviews with students and there are a number of astute observations that come up.

It seems the “drill” went live. Blanks turned out to be live ammo and people were killed—but that’s nothing compared to what else comes out.

An associate of Randy’s lives near the school and she paid a visit to evaluate the situation on her own and reported that what was really going on at the school is nothing like what the media is portraying on television.

Don’t these “kids” in the CNN interview seem a little aggressive to you, considering they should be suffering from extreme trauma, and probably weak and victimized? They’re acting like they’re not involved in the massacre, like they’ve been coached, are reading a script, or something unnatural.

And Hogg’s father just happens to be retired FBI? Hogg was also on television in Los Angeles at Redondo Beach, which is very interesting. What a coincidence.

They’re also attacking the NRA and telling them to disband, to stop paying politicians to support their agenda, and that Trump’s treatment of the situation was disgusting. Really? High school students are saying this?

There are plenty more details to consider in this video… such as the holes they go down when investigating the people linked to the shooting. There’s even a link to “One World Adoption Services”, Autism Speaks… Go figure.

The media is doing what the media always does; they’re telling the people who will believe anything they hear on the news what to think, what reality is, and what they should do.

In short, this is very similar to the other false flag events and school shootings like Sandy Hook. It’s total fabrication for the sake of shaping public opinion to disarm Americans, and other agendas like the ritual day sacrifices for the purposes of harvesting loosh, etc.

Thanks for the share, B.  ~ BP

 

via Devil in the Details… Media, Crisis Actors & Handlers at Parkland Florida School Shooting | Starship Earth: The Big Picture

Advertisements

Europe: Making Totalitarianism Great Again

The European Union is intensifying its efforts to censor and marginalize voices that disagree with its policies under the convenient euphemism of combating “fake news”.

Europe: Making Totalitarianism Great Again

  • The European Union has programs in place that seek heavily to influence mainstream news outlets and journalists with its own agendas — such as that of continued mass-migration into Europe from Africa and the Middle East. For this purpose, the European Commission recently funded the publication of a handbook with guidelines for journalists on how to write about migrants and migration.
  • It is seemingly in the interest of these media representatives to label competition from alternative or new media, “fake news”.
  • A proposed French law would allow authorities to block websites during election seasons, a draconian measure to combat political opponents, which would place France in the same category as countries such as China and Iran that block websites that do not suit the agendas of the regime.

The European Union is intensifying its efforts to censor and marginalize voices that disagree with its policies under the convenient euphemism of combating “fake news”.

“The Commission needs to look into the challenges the online platforms create for our democracies as regards the spreading of fake information and initiate a reflection on what would be needed at EU level to protect our citizens,” wrote Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission, in May 2017. How considerate that Juncker, in totalitarian fashion, wishes to protect EU citizens from news that does not fit the Commission’s narratives and agendas.

In October 2017, the European Commission announced its “fake news” policies and how it intends to “design solutions to address the spread of fake news”. According to the Commission, “Fake news consists of intentional disinformation spread via online social platforms, broadcast news media or traditional print”. Furthermore, according to the Commission, the EU’s fake news policy is guided by, among other things, “the freedom of expression, media pluralism, and the right of citizens to diverse and reliable information”.

This assurance of freedom of expression and pluralism comes across as rather laughable: the EU already does what it can to eliminate “media pluralism and… diverse and reliable information”. The EU, for example, has programs in place — such as the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme (REC) — that seek heavily to influence European mainstream news outlets and their journalists with its own agendas — such as that of continued mass-migration into Europe from Africa and the Middle East. For this purpose, the European Commission recently funded the publication of a handbook with guidelines for journalists on how to write about migrants and migration. The handbook was launched on October 12 by the International Press Institute (IPI) — an association of media professionals representing leading digital, print and broadcast news outlets in more than 120 countries. Specifically, with regard to Muslims, the guidelines recommend:

“… Take care not to further stigmatise terms such as ‘Muslim’ or ‘Islam’ by associating them with particular acts… Don’t allow extremists’ claims about acting ‘in the name of Islam’ to stand unchallenged. Highlight… the diversity of Muslim communities…”

The EU also financially supports a campaign, “Media Against Hate” run by the European Federation of Journalists (EJF), the largest organization of journalists in Europe, which represents over 320,000 journalists across 43 countries. That campaign aims to:

“… improve media coverage related to migration, refugees, religion and marginalised groups… counter hate speech, intolerance, racism and discrimination… improve implementation of legal frameworks regulating hate speech and freedom of speech…”

To further its nascent “fake news” policies, the European Commission recently appointed 39 “experts” to a so-called “High Level Group (HLEG) on Fake News and online disinformation”:

“It comprises representatives of the civil society, social media platforms, news media organisations, journalists and academia….

“The High Level group will advise the Commission on scoping the phenomenon of fake news, defining the roles and responsibilities of relevant stakeholders, grasping the international dimension, taking stock of the positions at stake, and formulating recommendations”.

The media representatives have been almost exclusively picked from the mainstream media — giants such as ARD, RTL, Swedish state television, Sky News, AFP and News Media Europe, which renders any sort of balanced outcome that these “experts” might reach a rather illusory option. To the extent that they even view new or alternative media as a threat, it is seemingly in the interest of these media representatives to label competition from alternative or new media, “fake news”. The high-level group held its inaugural meeting on January 15, 2018.

The European Commission will poll EU citizens and conduct a Eurobarometer public opinion survey to be launched early 2018 “to measure and analyse the perceptions and concerns of the European citizens around fake news”. The Commission will also be organizing a “multi-stakeholder conference on Fake News” which, will “define the boundaries of the problem, assess the effectiveness of the solutions already put in place by social media platforms and… agree on key principles for further action”.

The EU is not alone in threatening the shutting down of free speech under the cover of combating “fake news”. In France, President Emmanuel Macron has announced that he wants to introduce new legislation aimed at regulating “fake news” during election seasons, including “emergency legal actions” that would allow the French government to remove “fake news” from a website or block sites entirely…

Both European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker (left) and French President Emmanuel Macron (right) are proposing restrictions that would violate the right to freedom of expression and information that is guaranteed in the European Convention on Human Rights. (Image source: European Commission)

CONTINUE READING HERE

ER recommends other articles by The Gatestone Institute

About the author

Judith Bergman is a columnist, lawyer and political analyst.

Featured image:  ANSA / EPA

 

via Europe: Making Totalitarianism Great Again | Europe Reloaded

Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

 

Is North Korea Showing that the Emperor is Naked?

Is North Korea Showing the Emperor is Naked?

Amid the thick fog of (rhetorical) war between Washington and Pyongyang, it’s still possible to detect some fascinating writing on the (unbuilt) wall.

by Pepe Escobar

A case can be made that President Trump is using North Korea to kick the 24/7 Russia-gate narrative out of the US news cycle. It’s certainly working. After all, in Exceptionalistan weltanschauung, the prospect of war and its possible rewards certainly trumps hazy accusations of Russian hacking and election interference.

Capitol Hill would never even consider an attempt to impeach a president — on top if it surrounded by generals — while American geopolitical primacy is in danger. Besides, Congress has already made it explicit Trump does not even need permission to bomb North Korea.

So, according to this working hypothesis, if Robert Mueller finds anything seriously damaging to the Trump brand, the president might actually consider a bomb North Korea/wag the dog operation.

Meanwhile, anybody paying attention to what Edward Snowden has disclosed in detail knows hackers of all persuasions are fine tuned to all Mueller-related IT systems and cell phone communications. They will know what Team Mueller has managed to find on Trump in real time — and plan their contingencies accordingly.

As for the rhetorical war itself, a US intel source used to thinking outside the Beltway box points to the crucial variable, South Korea: “South Korea will not maintain its alliance with the US the day they believe that the US will attack North Korea to protect itself at the expense of the death of thirty million people in South Korea. South Korea is in secret talks with China for a major security treaty because of the US position that they will bomb North Korea in their own defense irrespective of the destruction of South Korea which the US would regard as most unfortunate.”

Don’t expect to read about these secret Beijing-Seoul talks on Western corporate media. And that’s only part of the equation. The source adds, “there are secret talks between Germany and Russia over the US joint sanctions against those two nations, and a realignment of the German position back to the Bismarckian Ostpolitik of a new Reinsurance Treaty with Russia.”

Assuming these secret negotiations bear fruit, the consequences will be nothing short of cataclysmic:

The European and Asian security systems of the United States may be about to collapse due to the turmoil in Washington, which is unhinging all of the United States alliances. As Congress undermines Donald Trump, the United States is presently jeopardizing all its major strategic relationships.”

Seoul Framed as “Collateral Damage”

Meanwhile, serious questions remain over North Korea’s true military capabilities. As an independent Asia intel source familiar with the Korean peninsula observes, “submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) as well as land-based nuclear missiles are available on the black market, so GaddafiHusseinNorth Korea would have no trouble acquiring them. North Korea knows that if they do not have a nuclear deterrent capacity, they could be subject to a similar destruction that occurred with Iraq and Libya. In addition, the irresponsible threats against North Korea by [US Secretary of State] Tillerson, who should retire to his fishing haunts, could do grave damage to the US, for if North Korea believes the US will strike, they will not wait like Saddam Hussein, having learned their lesson from that, but they will strike first.”

So the real issue, once again, is whether Pyongyang already is in possession of SLBMs as well as land-based nuclear capacity acquired through the black market. The Asia intel source adds, “North Korea presently has twenty Romeo class submarines which, according to Heritage expert Bruce Klingner, have the capacity to carry nuclear SLBMs. These Romeo class submarines have a range of 9,000 miles and the distance from Pyongyang to New York City is 6,783 miles. These submarines could be refueled, for instance, in Cuba, Therefore, it is not inconceivable to find a North Korean submarine offshore New York City equipped with a ballistic nuclear missile in a showdown at the O.K. Corral with Washington D.C.”

US Think Tankland is developing a creepy consensus when it comes to North Korea. Every analyst worth his paycheck knows that North Korea’s nuclear program sites are widely dispersed and ultra-reinforced; everyone also knows that devastating North Korea artillery is concentrated near the demilitarized zone (DMZ) within striking distance of Seoul. Still, this is all being spun as part of an aseptic narrative where the US is “extremely reluctant” to bomb.

It’s obviously hard for CIA types to publicly acknowledge that Pyongyang is — successfully — creating the framework for a new brand of negotiation with the US as well as with South Korea, China and Russia. Any rational, non-Dr. Strangelove intellect knows there is no military solution to this drama. North Korea is already a de facto nuclear power — and diplomacy will have to take it into account.

Neocon/neoliberalcon War Party/CIA types, though, bet on — what else — war. And fast — before the much-hyped point of no return when Pyongyang acquires a deliverable nuclear weapon. That’s where, predictably, most factions of the deep state converge with Trump. And that’s the stuff of all sorts of chilling scenarios, pointing once again to Washington having no qualms sacrificing its South Korean “ally”.

What the Deep State Really Wants

For all the intractable problems affecting the Korean peninsula, independent analysts have also been considering how the Washington-Pyongyang drama is only a small part of a much larger Big Picture: the American subjugation of international relations based on their dependence of what is extracted from the rest of the world in the form of dollar debt.

Washington uses the usual tools — sanctions and bombs — to enforce dollar-denominated global trade and energy trade. China has counter-attacked with everything from the biggest “win-win” trade/ infrastructure project of the 21st century — the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) — to buying energy in yuan: call it a mighty counterpunch against the infernal US debt machine. Russia for its part has fully re-emerged as a prime geopolitical/military power.

BzrezinskiThe Brzezinski doctrine — to prevent the emergence of any peer competitor, not to mention an alliance of peer competitors such as the Russia-China strategic partnership — is collapsing all over. Nuclear North Korea is just the latest visible sign of the collapse. It’s as if with voting in favor of the latest sanctions package at the UNSC, Russia-China have allowed a double dare (and they sure knew in advance the rhetorical war would escalate).

The cumulative effect, for all the world to see, is Washington regime change obsession (Iran, Venezuela, etc.) and illegal trade sanctions (Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc.) run amok, while Russia-China subtly keep undermining both Washington’s supply chain — as in dollar debt — and military enforcement (bomb North Korea if you dare). So it’s no wonder Russia-China, as far as the North Korea drama is concerned, are all for diplomacy while the exceptionalist US deep state craves war.

************

Original article

ER recommends other articles by Covert Geopolitics, and Sputnik News where this article originally appeared

About the author

Featured image courtesy of Reuters

 

 

 

via Is North Korea Showing that the Emperor is Naked? | Europe Reloaded

Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Unmasking PropOrNot: Exposing Deep State Crimes

This article opens up Propornot and exposes the people, publications, NGOs, and government agencies illegally trying to destroy the livelihood of alternative news portals. It also exposes a government agency involved in a deep-state coup starting before the inauguration. Lastly, the 2016 DNC hackers give their point of view.

Unmasking Propornot – Exposing Deep State Crimes

GEORGE ELIASON

This article opens up Propornot and exposes the people, publications, NGOs, and government agencies illegally trying to destroy the livelihood of alternative news portals. It also exposes a government agency involved in a deep-state coup starting before the inauguration. Lastly, the 2016 DNC hackers give their point of view.

::::::::

A little over a year ago, the deep-state graced the world with Propornot . Thanks to them, 2017 became the year of fake news. Every news website and opinion column now had the potential to be linked to the Steele dossier and Trump collusion with Russia. Every journalist was either with us or against us. Everyone that was against us became Russia’s trolls.

UnknownPropornot’s Unmentionables Exposed
(Image by Propornot.com)
  Permission   Details  DMCA

Fortunately for the free world, the anonymous group known as Propornot, that tried to “out” every website as a potential Russian colluder, in the end only implicated themselves.

Turnabout is fair play and that’s always the fun part, isn’t it? With that in mind, I know the dogs are going to howl this evening over this one.

The damage Propornot did to scores of news and opinions websites in late 2016-2017 provides the basis of a massive civil suit. I mean huge, as in the potential is there for a tobacco company-sized class-action sized lawsuit. I can say that because I know a lot about a number of entities that are involved and the enormous amount of money behind them.

How serious is this? In 2016, a $10,000 reward was put out for the identities of Propornot players. No one has claimed it yet, and now, I guess no one will. There are times in your life that taking a stand has a cost. To make sure the story gets out and is taken seriously, this is one of those times.

If that’s what it takes for you to understand the danger Propornot and the groups around them pose to everyone you love, if you understand it, everything will have been well worth it.

In this article, you’ll meet some of the people staffing Propornot. You’ll meet the people and publications that provide their expenses and cover the logistics. You’ll meet a few of the deep-state players. We’ll deal with them very soon. They need to see this as the warning shot over the bow and start playing nice with regular people. After that, you’ll meet the NGOs that are funding and orchestrating all of it. How am I doing so far?

Proof Propornot is owned by Interpreter Mag (Image by George Eliason)   Permission   Details   DMCA

The image that you see is the clincher or game winner that supplies the necessary proof up front and the direct path to Propornot. This was a passive scan of propornot.com showing the administrative dashboard belongs to the InterpreterMag.com as shown on the left of the image. On the right, it shows that uploads to Propornot.com come from InterpreterMag.com and is a product of that publication.

Now we have the first layer of Propornot, fake news, and our first four contestants. We have a slew of new media organizations that are influenced by, or feeding, Propornot. Remember, fake news got off the ground and got its wings because of the attention this website received from the Washington Post in Dec. 2016.

At the Interpreter Mag level, here are the people:

Michael Weiss is the Editor-in-Chief at the InterpreterMag.com. According to his Linkd profile, he has also been a National Security Analyst for CNN since Jul 2017 as well as an Investigative Reporter for International Affairs for CNN since Apr 2017. He has been a contributor there since 2015. He has been a Senior Editor at The Daily Beast since Jun 2015.

With the lengthy CNN cred’s, how much involvement does CNN have in fake news? Yes, I know, but focus: we’re talking about Propornot.

Catherine A. Fitzpatrick is a Russian translator and analyst for the Interpreter. She has worked as an editor for EurasiaNet.org and RFE/RL (ER: Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty)

Pierre Vaux is an analyst and translator for the Interpreter. He’s also an intern. He is a contributor to the Daily Beast, Foreign Policy, RFE/RL and Left Foot Forward and works at Dataminr Inc.

James Miller‘s bio at the InterpreterMag.com includes Managing Editor of The Interpreter where he reports on Russia, Ukraine, and Syria. James runs the “Under The Black Flag” column at RFE/RL which provides news, opinion, and analysis about the impact of the Islamic State extremist group in Syria, Iraq, and beyond. He is a contributor at Reuters, The Daily Beast, Foreign Policy, and other publications. He is an expert on verifying citizen journalism and has been covering developments in the Middle East, specifically Syria and Iran, since 2009. Follow him on Twitter: @MillerMENA- Miller even works for the US Embassy in Kiev “diplo-page” the Kiev Post.

Owned by
(Image by The Interpreter)
  Permission   Details   DMCA

The Interpreter is a product of the Atlantic Council. The Digital Forensics Research Lab has been carrying the weight in Ukrainian-Russian affairs for the Atlantic Council. Fellows working with the Atlantic Council in this area include:

Bellingcat – Aric Toler and Eliot Higgins – This linked article shows how an underwear salesman became one of the most important faces of the deep state. Don’t laugh; the image is really appropriate. His insecurity runs so deep because of his failures that Higgins tries to get publications censured that question his author-i-tie.

Anne Applebaum

– StopFake – Irena Chalupa – Chalupa is the sister to the same Alexandra Chalupa that brought the term Russian hacking to worldwide attention. Irena Chalupa is a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center. She is also a senior correspondent at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where she has worked for more than twenty years. Ms. Chalupa previously served as an editor for the Atlantic Council, where she covered Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Irena Chalupa is also the news anchor for Ukraine’s propaganda channel Stopfake.org. She is a Ukrainian Diaspora leader. The Chalupas are the first family of Ukrainian propaganda. She works with and for Ukrainian Intelligence through the Atlantic Council, Stopfake, and her sisters Andrea (Euromaidanpr) and Alexandra.

Dimitry AlperovichCEO of Crowdstrike and person who consulted a Ouija board and guessed Russia may have hacked something, somewhere, sometime.

The strand that ties this crew together is they all work for Ukrainian Intelligence. If you hit the links, the ties are documented very clearly. We’ll get to that point again shortly, but let’s go further:

Propornot-> Atlantic Council -> Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)

Who are the BBG? According to Wikipedia —“The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) is an independent agency of the United States government. According to its website, its mission is to “inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy. The BBG supervised Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio y Television Marti, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcast Networks.

The board of the BBG was eliminated and replaced with a single appointed chief executive officer as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, which was passed in December 2016.”


Brought to you by the US Government
(Image by The Interpreter)
  Permission   Details   DMCA

On January 1, 2016, the Interpreter became a special project of RFE/RL and under the oversight of the BBG. The Secretary of State had a seat on the board of the BBG until December 2016. Why the change?

During the 2016 election, the BBG developed a major conflict of interest. At least two BBG board members worked actively for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. These government officials were working against the president-elect after the election. It looks like it didn’t go unnoticed. In the following linked article, it shows that they should be investigated for their part in an attempted coup.

From a Nov 7, 2016, article–“Karen Kornbluh is helping refine and to get Hillary Clinton’s message out. ” All of them are names to watch if Clinton wins — and key jobs at the FCC and other federal agencies are up for grabs.”

According to her bio: Karen founded the New America Foundation’s Work and Family Program and is a senior fellow for Digital Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. Karen has written extensively about technology policy, women, and family policy for The Atlantic, The New York Times and The Washington Post. New York Times columnist David Brooks cited her Democracy article “Families Valued,” focused on “juggler families” as one of the best magazine articles of 2006.

Michael Kempner is the founder, President and Chief Executive Officer of MWW Group, a staunch Hillary Clinton supporter, and may get a greater role if she is elected. Kempner is a member of the Public Relations Hall of Fame. Michael Kempner hired Anthony Weiner after the sexting scandal broke in 2011.

Jeff Shell, chairman of the BBG and Universal Filmed Entertainment, is supporting a secondary role by being an honor roll donor to the Atlantic Council. While the BBG is supposed to be neutral, it has continuously helped increase tensions in Eastern Europe. While giving to the Atlantic Council may not be illegal while in his position, currently, the Atlantic Council’s main effort is to ignite a war with Russia. This may set up a major conflict of interest.

According to journalist Robert Parry, “The people that will be taking senior positions and especially in foreign policy believe “This consensus is driven by a broad-based backlash against a president who has repeatedly stressed the dangers of overreach and the need for restraint, especially in the Middle East.”

Parry goes on to say that at the forefront of this is the Atlantic Council, a think tank associated with NATO. Their main goal is a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.”

So, to make sense of all this, most of the people listed would have held cabinet positions in a Hillary Clinton presidency. If the Interpreter is a project of RFE/RL, then the decision to go ahead with Propornot would have to go across their desk. That includes then Sec of State, John Kerry.

The unasked question of why would a US Government Agency do this (?) needs to be addressed. All the people listed above were actively working for Clinton to get her elected and throw Donald Trump’s campaign off the rails.

After the election, they were going to take care of Clinton’s “deplorables” by dissecting alternative media. I wrote about this before the election and I warned several major new sites what they could expect. I was right on the money. After she lost, it was already in motion. The deplorable media didn’t fall into a particular political pattern other than they did not promote Hillary Clinton.

The purpose of Propornot has been to get people to demand freedom of speech be rolled back. This was/is to be done by destroying fact-based media. If you read further, the entire plan is laid out starting from 2015 when it started coming together.

These people want reality shaped on what the perceived majority (louder) group believes to be true, regardless of what the facts are. Perception-based reality is only a Facebook like away from killing one person or elevating another to hero status regardless of what they have done.


No Tea Party Today!
(Image by The Interpreter)
  Permission   Details   DMCA

That little statement about the free speech rally says it all. It’s something that would hardly be noticed unless you were looking for it because it is part of the meta-data.

Now you can say it’s only a sentence and who cares? Nobody communicates through metadata, do they? Wasn’t that what Propornot was all about? Yes, they do communicate through metadata. That’s why I look at it.

Looking for Work?
(Image by George Eliason)
  Permission   Details   DMCA

Do you see it? No? Look again. There in the metadata, at the bottom of the image is an ad for a job. Go for it and remember to mention the header. It could just as easily be hacking instructions, or a do not disturb sign. That’s why it pays to really research carefully.

The Boston ‘Free Speech’ Rally was billed by the social networks and MSM as a fascist rally. It was really a Free Speech Rally. What they learned is that with just a little nudge, they can make you demand nationalist repression. Nice going, Boston!

Hey, is this starting to sound a little conspiratorial? If it is, we need ruskie hackers with Guy Fawkes masks to make this work. They have to admit to changing international politics through hacking in 2016, belong to a foreign country, code in Russian, and use spear phishing techniques to lure people in. Let’s not forget that they also have to work for some form of Intelligence.

Most importantly, they have to work with and influence all of the people above. They will definitely impact US foreign policy toward Russia. Let’s raise the stakes even more. The hackers have to answer to whoever is funding a lot of the illegal and immoral activities.


Propornot-Hackers-RFE/RL
(Image by Propornot)
  Permission   Details   DMCA

They are not even savvy enough to stay clear of outing each other. This is the Pravy Sektor hacker RUH8. The common thread for these hackers is clear if you read the linked material on the profiles that make up these organizations. They work for Bellingcat, Informnapalm, the Atlantic Council, Ukrainian Intel, and the Ukrainian Diaspora.

In a follow-up article, I have reason to ask if they were given access to United States Government Top Secret Secure Servers. I’m not kidding.

In a Euromaidan Press article dated November 2nd, 2016, the hackers state enthusiastically “Ukrainian hackers have a rather high level of work. So the help of the USA” I don’t know, why would we need it? We have all the talent and special means for this. And I don’t think that the USA or any NATO country would make such sharp movements in international politics.”

And we have a winner. In 2016 the sharp movement in international politics was caused by…survey says….hacking!!!!

According to Donna Brazille, the Democratic Party servers were hacked multiple times and the hacking didn’t stop until December 2016. At this juncture, we should be able to agree that Seth Rich leaked the information to Wikileaks. But, now we are talking about other hacks. In the above linked article, these hackers specifically say their favorite route is spear phishing email accounts.

In the article, you’ll also see they work directly for Ukrainian Intel. Bellingcat works directly for Ukrainian Intel and works with them and the Atlantic Council. Stopfake is a product of Irena Chalupa who works for RFE/RL, the Atlantic Council and the Ukrainian government. Stopfake works directly with them and is a product of the Ukrainian government. Crowdstrike has an ongoing relationship with Ukrainian Intel and these particular hackers. If you’ll recall, Crowdstrike conjured up Fancy Bear. Well, say hello to the real fancy bear of 2016 (*fancybear is technically a set of tools and not people).

This means that former Secretary of State John Kerry approved of Ukrainian Intelligence hackers having access to servers inside a US Government Agency because of Propornot and the Atlantic Council’s reliance on the hackers.

How are the Ukrainian hackers tied into Propornot at any level? James Miller isn’t shy about using their work. Propornot relies on the work of the Atlantic Council, Aric Toler, Aaron Weisburd, Clint Watts, and Joel Harding. The Ukrainian hackers work directly with InformNapalm and are the go-to resource for the Atlantic Council and most of the people involved and all of the people just named.

Below we have assessed the details of the reports from InformNapalm, and have expanded on their investigation.James Miller

Americans are attacking Americans for a foreign country for what amounts to pennies.We’ll deal with them again soon.

Who does the Atlantic Council work for? It’s the same people that staff RFE/RL.

“On 29 January 2016 in Washington, U.S.A., Ukrainian World Congress (UWC) President Eugene Czolij and Atlantic Council President and CEO Frederick Kempe officially signed a Memorandum of Agreement to renew the cooperation between the UWC and the Atlantic Council, that began in September 2014.

In accordance with this Memorandum, the UWC will continue its cooperation with the Atlantic Council on implementing the “Ukraine in Europe Initiative”, which aims to galvanize international support for an independent, sovereign and territorially integral Ukraine, including Crimea. This initiative is also intended to support reforms in Ukraine and its EuroAtlantic integration, and to counter Russian disinformation.”

This one little paragraph spells out clearly what I have shown in detail throughout this article.

The Ukrainian World Congress is represented in the US Congress by the Ukrainian Caucus headed up by ISIS supporter and Nazi cheerleader Marcy Kaptur. Her Ukrainian Caucus represents people with political positions that scared Adolf Hitler in WWII.

The obvious takeaway is that a lawsuit is a bare minimum that needs to happen. People need to be investigated for crimes against the state. When we take a closer look at who had potential access to top-secret servers, that will become painfully obvious.

These people have tried and are trying to rip the fabric of society in pieces. At the very least, they have earned a good tarring…and feathering. When you look at the financial end of this, a lawsuit in the billions would barely touch it.

Just one company, the Ukrainian Diaspora started for this is valued at over 100 million dollars. This will need to be a class action suit with a cease and desist to the BBG.

In early 2015, almost 2 years before most people took the idea of censorship seriously, I documented its inception. In the same way it happens with many of the biggest stories of our times, I stumbled onto it by accident.

In early March 2015, Ukrainian Information Policy designer Joel Harding (pictured below) laid out what to expect going forward in the following statements:

“In military IIO, operations center on the ability to influence foreign audiences, US, and global audiences, and adversely affect enemy decision making through an integrated approach. Even current event news is released in this fashion. Each portal is given messages that follow the same themes because it is an across the board mainstream effort that fills the information space entirely when it is working correctly.”

JoelHardingThe purpose of “Inform and Influence Operations” is not to provide a perspective, opinion, or lay out a policy. It is defined as the ability to make audiences “think and act” in a manner favorable to the mission objectives. This is done through applying perception-management techniques that target the audiences emotions, motives, and reasoning.

These techniques are not geared for debate. It is to overwhelm and change the target psyche.

“Using these techniques, information sources can be manipulated and those that write, speak, or think counter to the objective are relegated as propaganda, ill-informed, or irrelevant.” –Harding

While the above sounds gloriously overoptimistic, Harding, along with his little band of Kremlin Troll hunters, personally started developing the idea of organizations capable of blackballing journalists and publications in a way that could not be construed as censorship.

From another March 2015 articleA “Disinformation Charter” for Media and Bloggers:

Top-down censorship should be avoided. But rival media, from Al-Jazeera to the BBC, Fox and beyond, need to get together to create a charter of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Vigorous debate and disagreement are, of course, to be encouraged–but media organizations that practice conscious deception should be excluded from the community. A similar code can be accepted by bloggers and other online influencers.

This “Disinformation Charter” for responsible behavior (Ministry of Truth?) he describes is to fight “conscious deception,” which can only be weighed against how he describes Propaganda. “The word is frequently used to describe any news emerging one’s opponent.”— Harding

Journalists that need to be excluded are those “our side” label as propagandists or active measure agents.

Harding’s connections in media are very large. Through his friend Mathew Armstrong, Harding had access to, and the ear of, the board of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). The BBG board was staffed by the who’s who of network and radio broadcast, print media and shortwave CEO’s and heavy hitters. They are behind RFE/RL (Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty).

On the other end of this in 2015, Joel Harding was assembling a group of miscreants to attack the social networks of different journalist and publications. The crude logic behind a direct assault was that by developing, training, and overseeing vast troll networks, they could speak over their opposition (people that their employers wanted to be silenced) and subdue dissident online conversation and control the information.

Where this wasn’t feasible, they set up hack and harass attacks at various publication to get them to stop publishing hard-hitting journalists. This still hasn’t been effective because it caused publishers to dig in and harden their internet properties instead.

The softer, more indirect approach Harding pushed in March 2015 quickly developed into the unified media strategy he wanted for the US and Europe. Control the information and don’t allow contradicting information or news into the media stream. When it does get in, call it propaganda.

Enter Propornot.

************

Original article

ER recommends other articles by OpEd News

About the author

George Eliason is an American journalist that lives and works in Donbass. He has been interviewed by and provided analysis for RT, the BBC, and Press-TV. His articles have been published in the Security Assistance Monitor, Washingtons Blog, OpedNews, the Saker, RT, Global Research, and RINF, and the Greanville Post among others. He has been cited and republished by various academic blogs including Defending History, Michael Hudson, SWEDHR, Counterpunch, the Justice Integrity Project, among others.

Photo of Hillary Clinton:  Matt Rourke / AP

 

 

 

via Unmasking PropOrNot: Exposing Deep State Crimes | Europe Reloaded

 

Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Soros and EU Commission are now against the free Internet

Soros and the EU Commission are now against the free Internet

GEFIRA

With his investments, Soros has become a billionaire. Unfortunately, for many years he has been interfering in the political and demographic developments in Europe and has been financially promoting ethnic replacement. Now he is turning against CSU, Facebook and Twitter because they are endangering his leftist revolution.

Like every year, Soros gave his speech on the state of the world at the World Economic Forum in Davos (see movie).1) The neoliberal quasi self-made sage spoke to his heart’s content, while the open, freedom-loving society he invited soaked in each of his words like a sponge. Now hardly anyone noticed that Soros was trying to take away their freedoms.

In the beginning Soros spoke about Russia, which he describes as a mafia state, which adopted nationalist ideology, and then he said that the US under Trump’s presidency will become similar in this respect. He now also included Hungary in the axis of evil. It is nothing new because he has always been hostile towards governments that are trying to protect their citizens from the consequences of open borders policies and the idea of an open society. What was new was that he scourged social networks. Soros maintains that since they have grown into powerful monopolies, which influence our behaviour and consciousness (especially during election time) too much.

They deceive their users by manipulating their attention and directing it towards their own economic interests and (…) making them dependent on their services (…) The platforms resemble casinos (…) and force people (…) to renounce what John Stuart Mill called the freedom of thought. Is that why Facebook and Twitter are banned in countries like China, Afghanistan and North Korea? Are people really allowed to think freely without access to the internet and the opportunity to post their opinions? No, Soros couldn’t care less about our freedom of expression; he simply doesn’t want us to be able to defend ourselves on these communication platforms against his manipulations, against the propaganda of his NGO network. Soros’s frontal attack sounds all the more hypocritical if one knows that he owns shares of the big tech companies worth 113 million dollars. These are peanuts compared to the $14 billion he has spent in the last 30 years on destabilizing many countries, especially in Eastern and Central Europe, with the purpose of installing open societies there.

Soros continues to declare war when he says:

“It is only a matter of time before the global dominance of the US IT monopolists is broken. Davos is a good place to announce that their days are numbered.”

This should be brought about by regulations and taxation. Taxation, because Soros is besides himself with anger that we can spread our free thoughts for free. He cited EU Commissioner Margrethe Vestager (pictured) as an example of how to proceed. The head of the anti-trust VestagerSierakowski ISOPIX SIPAauthority took exception to Google and imposed a fine of 2,424,495,000 euros on the search engine company for its mastery of the market for product search. In 2016, she said: “We believe that Google’s behavior has harmed consumers because they only get the results Google wanted, but they are not the most relevant ones.”2) If you google the keywords “EU Criticism,” then the search results and the contents of the websites you can access are certainly not relevant for the EU Commission; they are dangerous for them. Next, she delivered a blow to the iphone manufacturer, Apple. The verdict? 13 billion euros in tax. Vestager is thus an important domino in the trade war between Europe and the USA. It is also an element in the puzzle of the cultural struggle carried out on the Internet between the two continents. She will also play a crucial role as the EU’s most powerful woman – chief investigator, prosecutor and judge in one person, responsible for monopolies, mergers, cartels and state aid – in Soros’s private(?) war on freedom of expression. No wonder, then, that the social liberal politician would like to be the successor to Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the Commission.

The question arises: is Vestager in its full power sufficiently controlled by the European Parliament?

Soros also said in Davos that American technology companies are posing a threat:

“There could be an alliance between the authoritarian states and these large high-tech monopolies, whereby the resulting control systems within the large corporations would be linked to the existing state supervisory authorities. This can lead to the emergence of a system of totalitarian control that even Aldous Huxley or George Orwell never dreamed of.”

Huxley or Orwell also did not dream that in the age of the most developed democracies, a private network of NGOs within sovereign states would be allowed to conduct hostile policies and harm them: Soros financially supports NGOs that smuggle migrants to Italy on an industrial scale.

Finally a quote from our sage, our savior:

“The owners of the Internet platforms consider themselves to be the rulers of the universe. In fact, however, they are slaves who will do everything they can to keep their dominant position.”

The ruler of the “free thinkers” is now facing a difficult fight against the treacherous American big tech companies that want to conquer Europe, against the nationalist Russian Mafiosi, against the worthless Polish nationalist politicians who defend their right to self-determination within the EU, against the Trump republicans who are building a closed society, against Orban’s Hungarian nationalist insurgents who are busy making fences. Hopefully, in this fight he will lose his dominant position.

Source: youtube.com

************

Original article

via Soros and EU Commission are now against the free Internet | Europe Reloaded

Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Telling Us What to Believe: How the Deep State Recruits the Media

By Pam Barker | TLB staff writer/analyst 

If you’re here reading The Liberty Beacon, chances are you already know that the mainstream media, or ‘pressitute’ media as Gerald Celente termed it, has little to offer the citizen beyond functioning as an echo chamber for whatever agenda our government lackeys and global corporate masters want us to buy into. But digging a little deeper, the situation is rather more sinister and complex.

Think, a recruiting scene from Homeland.

60CIAinsert

In an interview given to RT at the end of 2014 to promote his latest book, Bought Media. How Politicians, Intelligence and High Finance Control Germany’s Mass Media, Dr. Udo Ulfkotte explains how young journalists are subtly courted by the intelligence services through the cover of trans-Atlantic organizations. Explaining how Germany is still a colony of the US, he says,

“Being a colony, it is very easy to approach journalists through what is very important here is transatlantic organizations. All journalists from really respected and recommended big German newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV stations – they are all members or guests of these big transatlantic organizations. You are approached to be pro-American and there is nobody coming to you and saying  ‘Well, we’re the Central Intelligence Agency. Would you like to work for us?’ No. This is not the case. How it happens, what they do, these transatlantic organisations, is they invite you for seeing the United States. They pay for that, they pay all your expenses and everything. So you’re bribed. You get more and more corrupt because they make you good contacts. You won’t know that those contacts are, let’s say, non-official – ‘non-official covers’ or officially people working for Central Intelligence Agency or other American agencies. So you make friends. You think they are friends and you co-operate with them. They ask you, ‘well, would you do me this favor? Would you do me that favor?’ And so you are more and more brainwashed through these groups.”

Journalists from a whole range of countries are subject to exactly the same practices including the UK, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, France to a lesser degree, Taiwan, Jordan, and Oman: “There are many countries where this happens, where you find people to claim they are respected journalists, but if you look behind them, you will find they are puppets on a string of the Central Intelligence Agency.”

UdoUlfkotte

Dr. Udo Ulfkotte

Ulfkotte, former editor of the prominent German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, was approached back in 2011 by an operative of the CIA’s sister organization, the Bundesnachrichtendienst or BND, to run a story about Gaddafi’s alleged attempt to build a poison gas factory. His complete lack of journalistic background for this story was no obstacle since he was provided not only with a dossier of ‘relevant’ information for the story but the very story itself. All he had to do was add his name. The piece ran worldwide two days later.

In fact, in a 2014 interview Ulfkotte revealed how, as a young student of Islamic Studies fluent in Arabic, he had been unwittingly recruited by some of his university professors, having been invited – or subtly pressured – to attend seminars on geopolitical topics where his expenses and travel were all taken care of. Encouraged later by one of his professors to work for the BND with the lure of a decent salary and car, he was immediately hired upon completion of his doctorate as a reporter by the Frankfurther Allgemeine Zeitung over a very large number of applicants. This despite having neither a degree nor background in journalism. Then began a career as a war correspondent, which took him freely to a range of countries in the Middle East normally restricted to western journalists, all with the backing of the western intelligence services including Mossad and MI6.

Non-compliance typically carries the threat of firing with little recourse in law. A helicopter pilot with Germany’s accident response unit, the Yellow Angels, discovered this the hard way when he refused recruitment to the BND only to find that the justice system backed up his employer’s decision to terminate him. In a surreal twist of logic, they deemed his refusal to co-operate with the intelligence services a sign of untrustworthiness. Ulfkotte himself claims to have had his house searched at least half a dozen times and has been accused of leaking state secrets by the German public prosecutor. At 55, with no children and a possibly terminal heart condition resulting from exposure to poison gas, he reckons there is little to lose by coming forward.

Ulfkotte’s book has since become a national bestseller, but German journalists aren’t allowed to report on the book for fear of losing their jobs.

Closer to home, Amber Lyon, former investigative journalist at CNN and Emmy-winner, discovered how the pursuit of US foreign policy quietly but forcefully trumps journalistic integrity. In 2011 during the Arab Spring, she and a team had been dispatched to Bahrain to cover the regime’s brutally repressive tactics against its own citizens only to find that, upon arrival, many of her sources had either disappeared or been arrested. Her own team had much of its evidence destroyed by government operatives, but some incriminating footage managed to be sneaked out. The 13-minute documentary that resulted from this – produced at unusual expense to CNN – was broadcast only once on the domestic network and not at all on CNN international (CNNi) thus depriving viewers in Bahrain, the target audience of the documentary, the opportunity to see their regime exposed.

amber lyon

Former CNN journalist, Amber Lyon

Back in the US, pressure was then put on Lyon by American PR companies employed by the Bahraini government as well as the government itself. CNN’s response meanwhile was to run what amounted to little more than propaganda segments promoting Bahrain as a progressive regime through its international arm, while requiring her to make corrective statements in her own reporting. Lyon and around 60 other employees were let go during 2012 as CNN disbanded its domestic investigative team, the most hardcore segment of the network according to Lyon. The pressure was stepped up on her personally when her agent was told by CNN she would lose her severance and medical insurance if she continued to speak out against the regime.

And the US foreign policy interest? The tiny islands of Bahrain house a key American naval base giving the US easy access from within the Persian Gulf to the Strait of Hormuz, a very narrow waterway which provides access to the Persian Gulf one way, and to the Gulf of Oman and out to the Arabian Sea on the other. A glimpse at a map reveals just how much landmass along the northern coastline of the Persian Gulf Iran occupies, placing the Strait of Hormuz largely in Iranian waters. To gain access to the oil-rich, pro-US middle eastern states on the opposing side of the Gulf, the world’s energy shipping and US military fleet are thus obliged to pass through this strategic bottleneck owned by Iran. A sovereign nation, Iran has often threatened to close up the Strait as it has the power to do under international law. That it hasn’t so far is simply a matter of good faith.

CNNi in fact frequently provides a paid voice for many abusive regimes supportive of US foreign policy interests. Says Lyon, “viewers are not being told that CNN is being paid by state regimes, some with horrific human rights records, to air content disguised as news which they’re often not even telling the viewers that this content was paid for by governments.”

GEdwardGriffin

Prolific author and researcher, G. Edward Griffin

G. Edward Griffin paints a somewhat bleaker picture of the way our mainstream media operates, if indeed it could get any bleaker. Exactly the type of questions that should be dealt with are not, by design. The key issues boil down to two general areas. First, US foreign policy, which places the US at the center of a powerful world government where decisions affecting everyone – who will be living in a new technologized feudal class – are made at the very top. This takes us into the domain of the New World Order, which is beyond the scope of this piece. Second, the dominance of the banking system, which must be protected and advanced at all costs and bailed out when necessary. To these he adds a third in parentheses, the Middle East, where US foreign policy interests dominate. Despite recurring rhetoric of bringing the troops home and ending the war, the gameplan never changes, he argues.

Can America keep her sovereignty amid encroachment by the New World Order? Will the banking cartel, aka The Federal Reserve, be allowed to continue to run the US government? Don’t expect these to be addressed anytime soon. Newsgroup owners like Murdoch all have seats on the Council on Foreign Relations.

This is especially disturbing at present since respected commentators in the alternative media are talking about how Washington neocons are actively preparing for nuclear war with Russia, and how a one-sided policy of aggression and provocation toward Russia has been playing itself out for some time. Some are genuinely fearing Armageddon. It was Ulfkotte’s biggest concern back in 2012, having spent years watching established journalists cheerlead for bringing a new war into Europe. Meanwhile, the presstitutes continue to push a parade of ‘terror’ attacks down our throats to normalize an anti-Muslim message, which this writer firmly believes are mostly false flag events, while our puppet governments, vassals of the Washington neocons, call for more and more restrictions on citizens’ freedoms.

*********

About the author

TLB image Pam

Pam Barker is a TLB staff writer/analyst based in France.  She has an extensive background in the educational systems of several countries at the college and university level as a teacher and administrator.

 

 

via Telling Us What to Believe: How the Deep State Recruits the Media | Europe Reloaded

 

Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The Three Global Super Powers – Different Agendas

The Three Global Super-Powers

ERIC ZUESSE

There are currently three global super-powers, three nations that lead the world: China, Russia, and US.

After World War II, until recently, the US clearly dominated the world, not only culturally, with more influence over the world’s other cultures than any other single nation possessed, but also economically, with product-dominance throughout the world. It was also militarily tied with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and, then, after the Cold War, still possessing such military dominance, so that in 2006, America’s billionaires — as represented by the most-prestigious two agencies that represent their collective interests against the public, the Council on Foreign Relations and Harvard University — were actively promoting, broadly amongst foreign-policy academics, the idea that the US should seek to occupy a position of such extreme military superiority over Russia. Thus, since 2006, the concept of “Nuclear Primacy” has been reflected by America’s power-centers as being the correct goal for America going forward, replacing the prior nuclear-strategic paradigm (since the 1950s) of “Mutually Assured Destruction,” or “M.A.D.,” in which nuclear weapons were (and, by Russia, still are) seen as purely defensive strategic military assets between the two nuclear superpowers, weapons whose only actual purpose, for either country, is to ward off a WW III — no usefulness at all in an actual aggressive nuclearbombmilitary context. Thus, M.A.D. became replaced in America by Nuclear Primacy, nuclear weapons that are put in place to serve not only to ward off a nuclear attack, but also, ultimately, to win a nuclear war against the other nuclear super-power, Russia — nukes as aggressive weapons, by which the US will (it has been expected, ever since 2006) soon be able to demand, and to receive, Russia’s capitulation, surrender, or else Russia will be destroyed by a US nuclear first-strike, while US casualties, from any presumably few Russian weapons that might make it through this ABM-BMD shield, will be kept to an “acceptably low” level, by virtue of that then-functioning ABM-BMD system, combined with increases in US nuclear striking-power. This nuclear-primacy paradigm aims for America (its billionaires) to take over the entire world, including ultimately the world’s largest land-mass: Russia.

But now, twelve years later, America’s presumed early lead in such ‘defensive’ strategic weaponry has become, instead, ever more clearly, just a figment of America’s military-industrial complex’s (MIC’s) fervid marketing-campaign for the development and sale of such weapons, ever since US President Ronald Reagan’s promised “Star Wars” program during the 1980s got the effort toward a winnable nuclear war started as an alleged ‘defensive’ measure — not yet overtly the end of M.A.D.

Soon after Reagan, the Soviet Union, and its communism, and its Warsaw Pact counter to America’s NATO military alliance, all simultaneously ended in 1991, as a consequence of which the US military-industrial complex (MIC), and especially the large US manufacturers of nuclear-weapons systems – the companies that dominate the MIC – were becoming stranded because the market for their costliest wares was now in limbo. Though elimination of the Cold War wouldn’t have been an existential threat to these manufacturers, an end to the Cold War on the US side would have threatened the market-values of those US companies, which are controlled by US billionaires, who have lots of clout in Congress. Thus, though the Cold War ended in 1991 on the Russian side, it secretly continued on the US side (that is, amongst America’s super-wealthy, the people who control the US Government — the main market for the MIC); and America’s strategic switch, away from M.A.D. to Nuclear Primacy (so as to unshackle their market from the prior politically imposed demand to maintain a nuclear balance between the two sides), has been a significant part of this secret continuation of the Cold War by America, while Russia’s Government continued instead to think in terms of the M.A.D. paradigm. (Russia’s weapons-manufacturers are still owned by the Government — socialized — so there’s no need to grow their ‘market value’.)

In a strictly capitalist country, weapons-manufacturing is a major area of investment for billionaires, whose fortunes there rise to the extent that governments are buying their planes and bombs and missiles, especially those of the most sophisticated types, which are strategic weaponry, such as nuclear systems, which are the most profitable ones of all. Growth-at-all-costs has meant (and means) that the MIC is a cancer upon the entire world. (Eisenhower’s Farewell Address, on 17 January 1961, understated the problem.) Either the entire military will be a public entity, or else there will be (because of its privatized weapons-manufacturing) a tendency for the military to destroy everything else in order to continue to grow, like investors expect and demand — grow like cancer.

george-bushA major source of America’s decline was US President George W. Bush, who came into office in 2001 when the Cold War could no longer excite the American public as being a threat (since the Soviet Union and its communism and its military alliance were now long gone), and a new demon thus needed to be brought before the American people as warranting increased ‘defense’ expenditures. 9/11 came along just in time to fill this interim lack of a cause de guerre, to attack now Al Qaeda and other (as today’s US President famously tags it) “radical Islamic terrorists.” However, America’s spending on strategic weaponry requires instead focus against the other nuclear super-power as being the ‘enemy’, and this is what the end of M.A.D. and the start of Nuclear Primacy (which is manna from heaven for the ‘Defense’ contractors) have been all about: re-defining ‘the enemy’ from being a country with which peace must be maintained (M.A.D.), to becoming instead a country that should be outright conquered. And, amongst the lies which are necessary in order to sustain this switch (from M.A.D. to Nuclear Primacy) is the lie that ABMs have no aggressive function, but are ‘purely for defense’. This lie will enable the public to accept the spending of trillions of dollars of federal money on weapons, whose sole real use will be conquering Russia — or, at least, the attempt to do so.

Nobody makes public the identities of the individuals in the US and in its allied countries who comprise the suddenly booming market for luxurious nuclear-proof deep-underground bunkers. But whomever these owners are, three things about them are obvious: they’ve got lots of money; they think that the prospect of a nuclear war is very real — worth their pre-paying for suitably luxurious long-term temporary accommodations deep underground; and they aren’t themselves one of the high government officials for whom the government’s taxpayers have already built such bunkers. (Or, perhaps, some of them do belong to the last of those three categories, but they’ve got so much extra money that they can easily afford to pay for more luxurious quarters than the taxpayers have already supplied them with.)

Quite similar to Donald Trump, but far more overtly faith-based than the hyper-secular former Miss Universe Pageant owner Trump, George W. Bush had a confidence like the Taliban and Al Qaeda do, that “God is on our side”, and so Bush acted as if he had no reason to test-out America’s ABM weapons before ordering and buying them (at the public taxpayer’s expense, and private billionaires’ profits, of course). Or perhaps, Bush didn’t even care whether these weapons would work, but only whether the owners of the companies that would be manufacturing them would be satisfied with the sizable profits from the decisions that he was making. In any case, Bush’s focus on rushing forward with a US ABM system demonstrated his strong commitment to the replacement of M.A.D., by Nuclear Primacy. The whole idea of Nuclear Primacy rests upon there being an effective US ABM system installed so as to make the enemy’s retaliatory weapons ineffective. Bush pushed the ABM into production even before there was any indication that it would work. He did this even before the very concept of “Nuclear Primacy” was publicly introduced by the two chief agents for America’s aristocracy in 2006. What Harvard and the CFR promoted, was already the Government’s policy. While there were criticisms of Bush’s execution of the plan, there was no significant scholarly opposition against the Nuclear Primacy concept itself.

All subject areas of expertise (and this refers to scientists, not to scholars) despised the religious faith-based President George W. Bush, much like they despise the secular faith-based President Donald Trump. For example, everyone knows that Trump has great difficulty finding experts who are willing to serve in his Administration. Similarly, in the October 2004 “Poll of Academic Economists” by the Economist, 59% of them answered “no” when asked “If you had a chance to work in a policy job in Washington, would you take it?” And when queried “For whom would you rather work?” Bush or his then electoral opponent Senator John Kerry, 81% chose Kerry — notwithstanding that, as a predominantly conservative lot, the economists did like one thing about George W. Bush: “Outsourcing of jobs overseas,” which 86% of them rated to be either good or very good. (Of course, Trump claims to oppose that; so, in this regard, he’s even less acceptable to economists than Bush was.)

Under Bush, experts were even trying, with no success, to inform this conservative faith-based President about areas in the federal budget where substantial funds were being simply wasted, but his blind faith caused him to ignore such scientific warnings, and enormous federal waste resulted. For example, the science reporter William Broad headlined in The New York Times on 24 September 2003, “Report Sees Risks in Push for Missile Defense”, and opened, “The Bush administration’s push to deploy a $22 billion missile defense system by this time next year could lead to unforeseen cost increases and technical failures that will have to be fixed before it can hope to stop enemy warheads, Congressional investigators said yesterday. The General Accounting Office, in a 40-page report, said the Pentagon was combining 10 crucial technologies into a missile defense system without knowing if they can handle the task [and subsequently the same thing happened in order to produce the scandalously overpriced and insanely multi-functional F-35 jets], often described as trying to hit a bullet with a bullet.” The article quoted a former Pentagon weapons testing chief, who said that to deploy such an anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system just a year hence as planned, would be to deploy “no more than a scarecrow, not a real defense” — in other words, a system that would almost certainly fail in any actual use — because so many parts of the system wouldn’t have been tested sufficiently to be designed functionally that soon. The prior (Bill Clinton) Administration, more attentive to such concerns, had established a schedule for testing the various parts of this complex system prior to any possible deployment. However, one of G.W. Bush’s first actions coming into office was to deploy an ABM system, even if it might not work, and to do the testing afterward. Bush, it seems, possessed the faith that if science were to fail to supply the system’s functionality, then God would certainly do so, for the benefit of “God’s People.”

Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post thus headlined on 26 April 2004, “Dubious Threat, Expensive Defense” and closed: “Bush would spend twice as much on missile defense as on customs and border protection,” yet gain only “a rudimentary and uncertain defense against an unlikely long-range missile attack.” Diehl opined that, despite the transformed defense needs after 9/11, “The president who never admits error will stay the course.”

Bush did stay the course: by the time of 14 February 2005, as The New York Times reported the next day, “The nation’s fledgling missile defense system suffered its third straight test failure.” Commented one scientist there, “It’s as if Henry Ford started up his automobile production line and began selling cars without ever taking one for a test drive.” But not quite: Bush had now taken his third ‘test drive’ — and all three failed.

On 4 April 2005, the AP reported, “Congress is weighing how much to invest in the fledgling ballistic missile defense system, which has suffered setbacks and whose cost could easily top the $150 billion partial price tag the Bush administration has estimated.” Some congressional proponents of the ABM system were even quoted as saying that it had to be deployed in order to prevent future terrorist attacks, such as had occurred on 9/11. Of course, that allegation is absurd — 9/11 couldn’t have been stopped by an anti-missile defense system. But members of Congress aren’t so stupid as not to know this. That allegation was probably just a marketing ploy sponsored in back rooms by corporations such as Lockheed Martin, who might reflect their satisfaction with the statement by donating to the ‘appropriate’ PACS.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress were financially shortchanging many of the nation’s authentic anti-terrorist needs. This $150 billion+ could have gone a long way toward achieving real protection (and/or toward serving non-defense needs), if it had been scientifically allocated.

Were Al Qaeda to have been voting directly in the US Congress, the ABM system would have had an easier time passing unchanged, exactly as Bush wanted. Al Qaeda would have been fervent Republicans — they were just as religious and just as faith-obsessed, though in a different ‘inerrant Scripture’. If Donald Trump has faith in any ‘inerrant Scripture’, nobody knows what it is. But he seems to have lots of faith in himself even if experts in the respective subject fields don’t.

By the present time, the failure of America’s entire ABM-BMD gamble — which was started under Reagan, began being operationalized under G.W. Bush, and finally installed by Barack Obama and now under Trump — is painfully clear. But success was never its actual goal: restoring the usdefensecontractorsgovernment’s growth in ‘defense’ spending (even while cutting now the government’s non-‘defense’ spending) is its real purpose. Those billionaires and centi-millionaires must be served, or else Congress-members will lose their seats to well-funded competitors in their own Party’s next primary. The system succeeds marvelously at doing what it’s intended to do: serve the people who buy the Government — to serve the actual patrons of this ‘democracy’. Instead of being a democracy, it’s a government that’s bought and sold.

While America thus spends itself into becoming increasingly a third-world country, China and Russia are pursuing different objectives. Specifically in the case of Russia, its military spending is one-tenth of America’s, but, because Russia cannot afford to allow billionaires’ demands for private profit to constitute the incentive system that drives the Russian Government’s military decisions, Russia has gone militarily from strength to strength, while post-WWII America (spending ten times as much) has gone from Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya to Syria, and yet America’s ‘news’ media have cheered all of these evil billionaires’ invasions of those countries we wrecked, as if companies such as General Dynamics owned companies such as the Washington Post, and thus (with all that propaganda) the American public continue to respect America’s military higher than any other US institution — despite such a long string of military failures by this country, despite spending ten times what Russia does on its military, and despite America’s military being the most corrupt part of the US federal Government.

But actually, America’s military spending is probably much higher than just ten times Russia’s because America’s official figures — what SIPRI and others use, which is just the ‘Defense’ Department — excludes much of America’s military expenses, as a consequence of which, America’s official $617.1 billion FY 2019 expenditure for the Department of ‘Defense’ masks an actual annual military expense of $1,135.7 billion. That’s $1.36 trillion per year to do things such as destroy Afghanistan, destroy Iraq, destroy Syria, destroy Libya, perpetrate coups such as in Ukraine, assist coups such as in Honduras, etc. But even that’s not the total ‘defense’ expenditure which taxpayers have bought for the billionaires because, throughout its existence, the US CIA has been getting unrecorded off-the-books billions from the international narcotics trade, starting in 1948 when it perpetrated a coup in Thailand and installed there a brutal regime that helped establish the CIA’s off-the-books funding-system, as I had mentioned in a prior article, where I discussed US relations with Syria in broader histrical context,

starting in 1949, when the US CIA, under President Harry S. Truman, did its second coup d’etat, overthrowing a democratically elected progressive Government (the first having been Thailand 1948, where the CIA had installed an extremely barbaric dictator replacing the democratically elected government that had been headed by a staunch anti-fascist, and simultaneously set up the CIA’s off-the-books supplementary funding mechanism from the international narcotics-trade — a CIA practice which has continued till perhaps the present; and, furthermore, the infamous Nugan-Hand affair, which involved Thailand, definitely involved the CIA’s Michael Hand and William Colby; so, clearly, the CIA is funded off-the-books from the narcotics business, and America’s anti-narcotics laws thus are actually keeping narcotics-drug prices and resultant burglaries and CIA profits artificially high, funneling that illicit money into CIA coffers; and any method to defund the CIA down to its core intelligence-gathering function and to eliminate its coup-function, which is the function that took control in Thailand and Syria and then Iran and many more, would need to regulate — instead of to continue outlawing — drugs, which might be the main reason why it hasn’t yet been done: illegal drugs provide wealth to the CIA and other gang-lords, including some US Government officials).

Another significant milestone in the development of the American elite’s plan to conquer Russia has been the overwhelming — more than 90% of the votes in both the US Senate and House — support for the imposition in 2012 of economic sanctions against Russia, to punish the Russian Government for the alleged 2009 murder of one alleged anti-corruption whistleblower in a Russian prison, Sergei Magnitsky — the Magnitsky Act was passed, and was the first set of economic sanctions against Russia. (The evidence that Magnitsky had been a ‘whistleblower’, and the evidence that he was ‘tortured’ in prison, and the evidence that he wasn’t instead the American Bill Browder’s tax-accountant who had helped Browder in a complex tax-evasion scheme that had defrauded the Russian Government of $232 million, are all themselves fraudulent, and even are easily verified as being fraudulent, but both the US Government, and the EU, ignored and continue to ignore all of it.) In order to have a ‘justification’ to attack Russia, an excuse is needed; and, since the ideological one — communism — ended in 1991, Russia needs to be at least a ‘dictatorship’; so, something such as the Magnitsky Act was necessary in order to get the military-industrial complex’a (MIC’s) PR ball rolling toward even-higher annual US ’defense’ spending. However, that excuse, being a ‘dictatorship’ (with elections that are at least as honest as America’s are), isn’t enough. Russia also needs to be officially declared to be an ‘aggressor’ — an aggressive dictatorship — such as to have grabbed portions of its adjoining country, Ukraine. So, America’s Obama regime secretly started in 2011 planning, and then in February 2014 it carried out, a coup against and overthrowing the democratically elected and Russia-friendly Government of Ukraine, and installed there a fascist regime to replace the one that had received 75% of the vote in the Crimean region of Ukraine, and 90% of the vote in the Donbass region of Ukraine, so that both regions refused to be ruled by the Obama-installed rabidly anti-Russian Ukrainian regime, and Russia helped both of Aurora17NATOthose two separatist regions on its borders, and even protected and accepted Crimea’s referendum vote of over 90% to rejoin Russia, of which Crimea had historically been a part until the Soviet dictator in 1954 arbitrarily transferred it to Ukraine. So, now, the US MIC has the excuses it wants in order to place — and thus did place — its weapons and troops onto and near Russia’s borders, just a ten-minute missile flight-time to Moscow.

This plan is moving forward, but nobody can yet say whether, or even when, the US regime will invade. However, the US regime and its NATO allies now also have the excuses that Russia has been holding ‘aggressive’ military exercises near its borders ‘threatening’ NATO countries on its border that might invade Russia, and Western ‘news’ media have alarmed their publics against Russia’s ‘aggressive’ moves after its having ‘stolen’ Crimea and ‘attacked’ Ukraine in Donbass. And then there is yet more Russian ‘aggression’ when Syria requested and received Russia’s military assistance against the US-backed jihadists who, since 2012, have poured by the tens of thousands from around the world into Syria, to be led by the US-backed Al Qaeda there to overthrow the Syrian Government, which is allied with Russia. So, that too (the Syrian war) could produce a war between the US and Russia; it could start over Syrian territory, where the US insists on regime-change, but claims only to be ‘fighting terrorists’ there. Of course, regardless of whether the invader of Syria (the US) or else the defender of Syria (Russia) wins, the loser in Syria, especially if it turns out to be the US invader (i.e., if Syria remains one country instead of breaking apart, and if Assad becomes re-elected as President there), could then use that superpower-defeat in Syria as constituting an excuse to invade the winning superpower there. This would be WW III, starting in Syria instead of in Ukraine. The US regime has set up those two scenarios.

1984 has come to the real world, but the declining and former leading superpower, America (“Oceania” in George Orwell’s uncannily prophetic description of the future that he prematurely set to occur in 1984), is apparently determined to stay ‘on top’, even if it’s the last thing that anybody does. Can it really be that if the world of the future won’t be led by America’s billionaires, then it won’t exist at all? Do they really demand “My way, or the highway” — really? Are America’s billionaires (despite any ‘humanitarian’ pretenses they individually so often hypocritically express, both in the fictionalized and in the real version) so stunningly united in their actual psychopathy (likewise in both versions — “Big Brother,” and today’s reality)? Thus far, it seems that they are. None of them — not one of these people who have the financial resources to bring the world’s most pressing issue honestly to the American public — is speaking out against the others on it, and devoting major funds to exposing the others for their pumping lies against Russia, and to exposing the truths about such things as ABMs and the MIC. And collectively they’ve got the American public fooled into admiring the MIC (“the Military”) above all other US institutions. But whether America’s billionaires will carry their collective evil to the extreme isn’t yet clear. They are the actual decision-makers regarding US Government policy, but they are playing their cards — as usual — privately and secretly until their game (whatever it may turn out to be) will already be finished.

Meanwhile, Russia and China each proceeds forward on its own priorities, which aren’t necessarily similar to those of the conquest-obsessed American Government.

************

Original article

ER recommends other articles by Strategic Culture Foundation

About the author

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity

 

 

via The Three Global Super Powers – Different Agendas | Europe Reloaded

Fair Use Notice
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.