Senate Passes Bill Targeting Alternative Media
The United States Senate pulled a fast one. On December 8, it passed the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act was added to the authorization bill.
“The passage of this bill in the Senate today takes us one critical step closer to effectively confronting the extensive, and destabilizing, foreign propaganda and disinformation operations being waged against us,” said Senator Rob Portman, who introduced the original bill along with Connecticut Democrat Chris Murphy. “While the propaganda and disinformation threat has grown, the U.S. government has been asleep at the wheel. Today we are finally signaling that enough is enough; the United States will no longer sit on the sidelines. We are going to confront this threat head-on. With the help of this bipartisan bill, the disinformation and propaganda used against our allies and our interests will fail.”
The following day, the CIA concluded with “high confidence” Russia had hacked the Republican National Committee’s computer systems along with Democratic organizations, reported The New York Times.
The CIA and the National Security Agency say they have identified individual Russians responsible for the intrusion but have so far not named names or publicly released information to make their case.
Zero Hedge notes the bill “further chips away at press liberties in the US, and which sets the stage for future which hunts and website shutdowns, purely as a result of an accusation that any one media outlet or site is considered as a source of ‘disinformation and propaganda’ and is shut down by the government.”
Prior to the passage of the NDAA an anonymous group calling itself Propaganda Or Not listed dozens of alternative news websites it claims are responsible for disseminating Russian propaganda. The Washington Post cited PropOrNot when it published an article alleging the Russian’s are responsible for “fake news” intended to destabilize the election and get Donald Trump elected.
“The flood of ‘fake news’ this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation,” the newspaper reported on November 24.
The Washington Post refused to retract the article after website publishers complained and threatened to take legal action. Instead, it appended the article with an editor’s note. It said the newspaper does not “vouch for the validity of PropOrNot’s findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor did the article purport to do so.”
The disclaimer, however, did not prevent the establishment media from denouncing the alternative media as Russian collaborators. The “fake news” story dominated headlines.
The NDAA will establish the Center for Information Analysis and Response. It will “track and evaluate counterfactual narratives abroad that threaten the national security interests of the United States and United States allies” and develop and disseminate “fact-based narratives and analysis to counter propaganda.”
Although the bill indicates the effort will be focused abroad, many of the websites cited by PropOrNot and the Post are located in the United States. The fact alternative media websites are situated in the United States, however, will not moderate action the government takes. The establishment argues domestic websites are part of a large Russian effort to penetrate media in the United States and this represents a serious threat that must be dealt with.
If the legislation is signed by the president it will “increase the authority, resources, and mandate of the Global Engagement Center to include state actors like Russia and China in addition to violent extremists.”
The Global Engagement Center is based out of the State Department. It offers services ranging from planning thematic social media campaigns, providing factual information countering alleged disinformation, building capacity for selected third parties to effectively utilize social media, and research and evaluation, explains Harry Henderson. In short, the center will design propaganda for the government.
“The Center will be led by the State Department, but with the active senior level participation of the Department of Defense, USAID, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Intelligence Community, and other relevant agencies,” Portman explains.
Let’s take a look at each of these in turn.
In 2013, the NDAA passed by Congress negated the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987. Both set legal restrictions on domestic use of propaganda intended for foreign audiences. With the passage of the NDAA, the State Department and Pentagon began to officially use propaganda against the American people.
According to the Government Accountability Office, the Pentagon spends more than $626 million per year on propaganda, more than all over government agencies combined. GAO statistics show that from 2006-2015, the Pentagon was allocated 66 percent of the $1 billion annual federal spending on public relations.
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) has a history of undermining governments. “In a number of countries, including Venezuela and Bolivia, USAID is acting more as an agency involved in covert action, like the CIA, than as an aid or development agency,” writes Mark Weisbrot.
USAID trained police in Guatemala; trained police, ran prisons, and participated in the Phoenix assassination program during the Vietnam war; backed Russian “democrats” during the downfall of Yeltsin in Russia; and worked with George Soros and the State Department to engineer a coup in Ukraine.
USAID also engages in the dissemination of propaganda. In 2010, the agency paid contractors to develop ZunZuneo, an online social networking and microblogging service targeting Cubans. The Twitter-like platform encouraged Cubans to revolt against the government and foment a “Cuban Spring.”
The Broadcasting Board of Governors is the body that manages the US overseas propaganda service, including Voice of America, Al-Hurra, Radio Free Europe, Radio Marti, and others. Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty were run by the CIA. In 1971, the CIA said it had ceased funding overseas propaganda but continued “informal supervision” of project activities.
In 1999, the Broadcasting Board Governors “became the independent, autonomous entity responsible for all U.S. government and government sponsored, non-military, international broadcasting," according to their website.
In addition to government agencies, Sen. Portman’s bill “seeks to leverage expertise from outside government to create more adaptive and responsive U.S. strategy options. The legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists and provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations, and other experts outside the U.S. government with experience in identifying and analyzing the latest trends in foreign government disinformation techniques.”
The legislation reveals the establishment is pulling out all the stops and will significantly expand its propaganda efforts. If the NDAA is signed by the president, we can expect “whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests,” in other words, the interests of the corporate oligarchy and its political class.
The establishment media has laid the groundwork, portraying the alternative media is part of a Russian propaganda campaign. Publishers of alternative media websites should expect to be targeted if this bill becomes law. In addition to the overt and publicly revealed propaganda efforts of the State Department, the Department of Defense, USAID, the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and NGOs, alternative news websites should prepare to become targets of covert cyber warfare. In April 2015, secretary of defense Carter Ashton announced the Pentagon is ready to wage preemptive cyber war.
It is, to say the least, ironic the United States has expressed outrage over a supposed Russian propaganda campaign while at the same time operating a massive propaganda apparatus targeting millions of people, including Russians and now the American people.
# # # #
Kurt Nimmo, Newsbud Producer & Analyst, is a writer, editor, producer and researcher based in New Mexico. His research centers on international geopolitics and national politics in the United States. He is the former lead editor and writer for Infowars and now edits Another Day in The Empire. His most recent books are Donald Trump and the War on Islam and Another Day in the Empire: The Reign of George W. Bush and the Total War Neocons. _________________ www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org www.rethink911.org www.patriotsquestion911.com www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org www.mediafor911truth.org www.pilotsfor911truth.org www.mp911truth.org www.ae911truth.org www.rl911truth.org www.stj911.org www.v911t.org www.thisweek.org.uk www.abolishwar.org.uk www.elementary.org.uk www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149 http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
'Germany is considering imposing a legal regime that would allow fining social networks such as Facebook up to 500,000 euros ($522,000).
n a move that will most certainly lead the way to other EU vassal states adopting similar measures, Angela Merkel is considering imposing a 500,000 euros ($522,000) fine on Facebook, and other social media platforms, for each day they leave a “fake news” story up without deleting it.
The German government will consider the bill in the new year. The initiative has bipartisan support, allowing both official and private complainants to flag content that is considered “fake news”.
The law forces social networks to create in-country offices focused on responding to takedown demands, and makes social networks legally responsible for compensation, if a post by individual users were found to slander someone…and we are confident that no private individuals will abuse such laws for financial gain.
With George Soros financing the “third-party fact checking” organization retained to flag, and censor “fake news” on Facebook, we are positive that any publication not of the neo-liberal, globalist kind, will be properly removed from social media platforms, so as to avoid Merkel’s book burning fine.
Germany’s parliamentary chief of the Social Democrat party, Thomas Oppermann in an interview with Germany’s Der Spiegel magazine said…
“If after the relevant checks Facebook does not immediately, within 24 hours, delete the offending post then [it] must reckon with severe penalties of up to 500,000 euros.”
After such laws are passed in Germany, if Facebook were truly an open communication platform, they should pull out of Germany and see how the populace reacts to Merkel’s brutal attack on free speech.
Do not be fooled, this is a move that clamps down on free speech, and is something a dictator in a banana republic would do.
Merkel, for her part will brush such claims aside, and resort to the standard EU/US excuse of blaming Russia for their home grown sinister agenda to rule their nations with an iron fist.
Heat Street reports that the legislation is being push to combat Russian election hacking in Germany, before such elections take place, and with no evidence of such hacking having been proven by German of US officials.
German lawmakers believe this bill will help tackle the possibility of Russia meddling in Parliamentary elections scheduled for next year. This follows the allegations that the Kremlin was behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee that led to the leak of thousands of emails by key aides to Hillary Clinton.
The German intelligence agency has warned that Russia could try to undermine the elections next year by employing automated bots on social media to spread fake news articles.
Some members of the government have advocated criminalizing the spread of so-called “fake news”. Patrick Sensburg, a senior MP in Merkel’s party said recently: “Targeting disinformation to destabilize a state should be a criminal offence.”
Hans-Georg Maassen, the head of Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, told Bild am Sonntag: “Facebook is earning an awful lot of money with fake news.” He added: “A company that earns billions from the internet also has a social responsibility.”
But, of course, the MSM will be exempt, willing and able to print all the real 'Fake News' they like, as they have become so adept at doing.... _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Richard Vaughan
14:30Monday January 2nd 2017
University students should be taught how to spot fake news from real current affairs as part of their academic studies, according to researchers.
Universities are “ideally positioned” to teach students the critical skills needed to navigate the potential pitfalls when consuming news online, particularly on social media, leading academics on the topic added.
The advice comes as concerns around the dangers of fake news have grown, with the issue of dubious news stories dominating the recent US Presidential election and the EU referendum.
‘Critical literacy’
It was even suggested in the immediate aftermath of the election, that the dissemination of fake news on Facebook helped swing the result in favour of Donald Trump.
Philip Seargeant and Caroline Tagg of the Open University and Amy Brown of the University of Nottingham Ningbo in China, have called on institutions to provide students with “digital critical literacy” to help them understand how information is being processed and shared online.
Prof Seargeant said that while students will learn how to discern what information is trustworthy or not as part of their “study skills” in higher education, these tools are rarely applied beyond their studies.
“I don’t know whether students apply the same critical analysis of news as they do with their studies. We do a lot of work with them on plagiarism and which sources they should trust when constructing an argument, but we believe the skills should be broader than that,” he said.
“How information flows through social media isn’t something that comes intuitively, it is something that is learnt. Our research shows that learning skills to discern what is fake or not more broadly could be very useful in wider society.”
‘Failing education’
He and his fellow researchers are now working on producing a series of educational resources that could be used by universities as a bolt-on module to help raise awareness among students and to allow them to make more informed decisions.
Teaching such skills will help students to become “critically engaged citizens”, he added. The research will be published in a forthcoming book Taking offence on social media: conviviality and communication on Facebook.
But Prof Alan Smithers, director of Buckingham’s Centre for Education and Employment Research, said students should already be applying such skills having learnt them through their studies.
“University education is failing if it does not teach you how to draw a view from a variety of sources to tell you what is true and what is not,” Prof Smithers said. “Establishing whether something is backed up by evidence is really taught through the subject. Sciences and the humanities rely on firm basis of evidence. That is as true in school as it is at university.”
How to spot fake news:
According to Professor Seargeant, the first way of discerning whether a story is real or not is to cross reference the story on other more reputable sites. If it doesn’t appear anywhere else then it is probably fake. He also suggests using the growing number of fact-checking websites that are being created in a bid to counteract the rise of false news.
According to one such website, factcheck.org, another way to check whether a story is true, is to check the URL of the website that is reporting the story. The site adds that a simple method to check the legitimacy is to read beyond the shocking headline, as many fake news stories barely bother to hide the dubiousness of their article.
Another tell-tale sign is often the name of the author, if the name sounds like a joke it probably is. Other giveaways include the date of stories; often fake news sites will use a real story but from the past to claim something new is happening.
Biggest fake news stories:
“Pizzagate”
False reports that Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her chief campaign aide were running a paedophile ring from a pizza restaurant in Washington DC led to a man entering the pizza chain wielding an assault rifle.
“Pope Francis Shocks World, Endorses Donald Trump for President, Releases Statement”
The fake news story originated from the website WTOE 5 News in July, claiming the Pope had broken with tradition and given his unequivocal backing to Trump. He had not.
“Trump Offering Free One-Way Tickets to Africa & Mexico for Those Who Wanna Leave America”
Another bogus story featuring the President elect, suggesting Trump Airlines would fly anyone wanting to leave America for free.
“Corona beer founder makes everyone in Spanish village millionaires”
Even the i fell for this story, along with nearly every other mainstream outlet around the world. Antonio Fernandez did not leave £2m to every resident of Cerezales del Condado, a small village in rural Spain.
“FBI agent suspected in Hillary email leaks found dead in apparent murder-suicide”
The Denver Guardian conjured up this “exclusive” but the Denver Guardian does not exist.
“Women Arrested for Defecating on Boss’ Desk After Winning the Lottery”
This was one of the biggest fake news stories circulated on social media in 2016.
Essentials
NewsSportCultureLifestyleDistractionsExplainersOpinion
Useful Links
AboutContact UsAdvertiseSubscribe to i
Join Us On
First on this list is, obviously, the conquest by NATO of all of Eastern Europe. I speak of conquest because that is exactly what it is, but a conquest achieved according to the rules of 21st century warfare which I define as “80% informational, 15% economic and 5% military”. Yes, I know, the good folks of Eastern Europe were just dreaming of being subjugated by the US/NATO/EU/etc – but so what? Anyone who has read Sun Tzu will immediately recognize that this deep desire to be ‘incorporated’ into the AngloZionist “Borg” is nothing else but the result of a crushed self-identity, a deep-seated inferiority complex and, thus, a surrender which did not even have to be induced by military means. At the end of the day, it makes no difference what the locals thought they were achieving – they are now subjects of the Empire and their countries more or less irrelevant colonies in the fringe of the AngloZionist Empire.
http://thesaker.is/how-russia-is-preparing-for-wwiii/ _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:30 am Post subject:
Ever wondered how the BBC keep their programmes so infantile
Quote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dayna Ambris <Dayna.Ambris@bbc.co.uk>
Date: 3 July 2012 11:45
Subject: BBC Bristol Taster Day
Please send this on to anyone who you think would be interested.
Unfortunately the Taster day is not open to anyone who has taken part in one of our previous schemes i.e. Face2Face or Talent Ticket.
All applicatnts must be over 18.
<<BBC Taster Application Form 2012.docx>>
Interested in the Media? Ever wondered what it’s like working at the BBC? Are you 18-25 years old?
Well why not come along to our BBC Taster Day!
This event is due to take place on Tuesday 24th July 2012 from 10.30am- 2.30pm and will include career advice from current staff and a BBC Tour.
Please complete the attached application from and email it back to Bristol.Outreach@bbc.co.uk by Friday 20th July 2012.
We only have 16 spaces so please apply quickly to avoid disappointment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 8:14 am Post subject:
'Media told by government that they are barred from covering Navy Memorial Protest at Trump Inaugural!':
'..The ANSWER coalition has been informed by credentialed media, including a major national TV news network, that have just been told by the Secret Service that they will not be allowed access to the Navy Memorial on January 20th to cover the major protest taking place there along Trump’s Inaugural Parade Route.
This is an outrage, a blatant act of political discrimination, and a grave threat to free speech and the right to dissent in the Trump Era.
This is an unprecedented restriction of media coverage at the inaugural parade. Media has always been able to go to the Navy Memorial in the past and now, just a few days before thousands of protesters are expected to gather there for a peaceful protest, news teams and cameras are suddenly told they will be banned from entering.
On Inauguration Day, the Navy Memorial will be the largest single demonstration location showing direct opposition to Donald Trump. The media wants to cover this protest that will reflect the powerful grassroots opposition to Trump’s extremist right-wing agenda.
We fought for a permit for people to assemble directly abutting the parade route, and now those in charge of Trump's Inaugural Parade are trying to sanitize the image of the parade by trying to close the protest to media. We won't let them.
No doubt Trump's Presidential Inaugural Committee wants to be sure that the cameras are only focused on the parade and not on the thousands of people expressing opposition to the incoming administration and who are planning to be at the Navy Memorial.
Reporters have informed us that they were told they could not go into the Navy Memorial area and record footage or even interview people along the route there as part of their news coverage. They are credentialed media, and credentialed for access inside the checkpoints, but have been told, that they may only cover the parade in specific spots. Those spots exclude covering the protest at the Navy Memorial — the one permitted protest on the Inaugural Parade that will take place.
Our attorneys at the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund are intervening on our behalf with the government. They are insisting that the government clarify, in no uncertain terms, that freedom of the press will be respected along Trump’s parade route and that the Secret Service directive be rescinded.
Time is of the essence. Trump intends to whitewash the mass protests taking place against his administration, but we can’t let that happen. Share this alert far and wide on Facebook and Twitter.....'
I can't give a link, as it was sent as an email, but it is sent out by the 'ANSWER Coalition', who request the message to be disseminated widely _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
As corporate media continue to haemorrhage ad revenue to websites like Facebook, and credibility to social media activism, dissent seems to be increasingly viewed as a luxury the 'mainstream' can ill afford.
Where once a handful of dissidents was allowed to challenge the Grand Propaganda Narratives (GPN) of the day, modern leftists are tolerated only if they accept these narratives even as they talk radical change.
A Guardian regular who stands out in this regard is Paul Mason, formerly BBC Newsnight Business Editor and Channel 4 News Economics Editor. Promoted to prominence by the corporate system he ostensibly resists, Mason reinvented himself as a vocal left activist who strongly supports Jeremy Corbyn. Mason now has 377,000 followers on Twitter, an impressive total for a political commentator. And yet some of his views are incongruous to say the least.
In a Guardian piece this week, Mason focused on the latest North Korean missile test, which he declared 'a clear threat or a clear bluff... So the question for the world is: how do we contain the threat and detect the bluff?'
Mason was thus reinforcing the GPN that all problems are 'our' business, and that 'we' have the moral credibility to 'do something' about them. This despite 'our' appalling track record, recognised by Mason himself:
'We've been here before, of course, with Saddam Hussein in 2003. Then, the chemical weapons turned out to be a bluff and the biggest threat to world peace emanated from Washington and London.'
In other words, the same 'we' that needs to 'contain' the North Korean 'threat' to peace was itself the actual threat to peace in Iraq. Subsequent Western war crimes in Libya, Syria and Yemen suggest that little has changed.
In claiming that Saddam Hussein tried to 'bluff' the West on WMD, Mason reinforced the GPN that Iraq was more than just a wanton war of aggression. Instead, Western leaders were suckered by Saddam's suicidal braggadocio, by 'faulty' intelligence, and so on.
In an unpublished letter to the Guardian in response to Mason's piece, journalist Ian Sinclair wrote:
'In reality the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told ABC News in December 2002: "We don't have weapons of mass destruction. We don't have chemical, biological or nuclear weaponry". Hussein himself repeated this in February 2003, telling Tony Benn in an interview screened on Channel Four: "There is only one truth and therefore I tell you as I have said on many occasions before that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever".' (Email to Media Lens, February 16, 2017)
Not only did the Iraqi government not attempt a bluff, it was telling the truth.
Mason insisted that Britain should work to ensure that the response to North Korea is 'restrained, proportional and done through the UN security council'. But in claiming, as Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen burn, that the US-UK alliance might suddenly, somehow act multilaterally and responsibly - despite its track record of unilaterally pursuing self-interest at almost any human cost - he was promoting a GPN.
An Epitaph To Die For
But the really remarkable thing about Mason's article is the extent to which he demonised North Korean leader Kim Jong-un:
'People like Kim want to be remembered for a thousand years. And, as the current outbreak of swastikas on the walls of western cities show, if it's a phoneix-like [sic] rebirth you are after, you don't have to wait a thousand years.
'"I triggered a nuclear war with the USA and reduced South Korea to a toxic wasteland" would be, for Kim, an epitaph worth dying for. Even better if he could add, "and I destroyed the multilateral global order for ever".'
This is another classic GPN: while identity, location and appearance may change, there is always a fantastically insane 'Bad Guy' at large in the world who simply must be confronted by the West's heroic arms industries and tax-funded militaries, their budgets grown fat on fear-fuelled 'socialism for the rich'.
We were so shocked by Mason's comment that we contacted John Feffer, the director of Foreign Policy in Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies, and author of several books on Korean politics:
'Would be interested in your thoughts on this piece claiming Kim Jong-un would be willing to die to kill 50 million South Koreans.'
Feffer was kind enough to reply immediately:
'no indication that Kim believes such a thing -- narcissists usually prefer self-preservation at all costs.' (Feffer to Media Lens, February 14, 2017)
Korea specialists Markus Bell at the University of Sheffield and Marco Milani at the University of Southern California, commented earlier this month:
'a nuclear attack from Pyongyang appears highly unlikely. The government is fully aware that it would incur an overwhelmingly destructive military response from the US and South Korea'.
We also wrote to Mason:
'What's your evidence for the claim Kim Jong-un would be willing to die, if it meant he could kill 50 million South Koreans?'
As ever, Mason ignored us.
Why would a high-profile left activist emulate extreme, hard-right demonising of an official 'Bad Guy', the kind of thing that is a fixture in The Times, Telegraph and Washington Post? Why would an activist do this having witnessed the literally millions of deaths, injuries and refugees generated by exactly this kind of cartoon demonisation of Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar Assad, and others? And why risk fanning the flames of a conflict that could consume millions of Korean lives when North Korea offers precisely zero threat to Britain?
Mason also worked more subtly to breathe life into the 'responsibility to protect' GPN that has been a disastrous adjunct of demonising propaganda over the last few decades:
'If the missile crisis escalates, I have no doubt that by the weekend there will be people on the streets of western capitals chanting "No war with North Korea". That's good – but the left has to realise there is no direct read-off from Iraq to the DPRK.'
This reinforced the theme – tirelessly emphasised by Perpetual Warmongers like Jonathan Freedland, David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen – that the 'mistake' in Iraq should not mean we naively, selfishly and irresponsibly give up on the 'humanitarian intervention' so beloved of Western fossil fuel and arms companies.
Bizarrely, Mason suggested that Trump might be tempted to utilise 'the crisis to launch a pre-emptive, unilateral strike on North Korea'; a notion that seems simply preposterous.
Mason's article also fits well, if ironically, with his views on Britain's own nuclear missiles. Mason said last year:
'I think Labour should vote to keep Trident.'
Why? Because 'Britain does face rapidly evolving threats': terrorism and 'a newly aggressive and unpredictable' Russia.
The idea that Trident can deter terrorism is as risible as the idea that Putin – albeit threatened by a newly aggressive and unpredictable Nato - is contemplating a nuclear strike on Britain. Yes, of course there is a vague theoretical possibility. But it is invisibly tiny compared to the overwhelming likelihood that Britain will be subject to near-term devastation as a result of runaway climate change. A threat the UK government - obsessively concerned, as it is, with our welfare and 'national security' - tries hard to bury rather than address.
Writing in the New York Times this week, Anatol Lieven responded to the much-loved GPN that is the supposed Russian 'threat':
'There are many good reasons for the United States to reach conciliation with Moscow on issues from Eastern Europe to the Middle East. The real question will be if Washington can control its own desire for global hegemony enough to make that possible.
'Unlike China, Russia is not an emerging peer competitor to the United States. Russia is a regional power struggling to retain a fragment of its former sphere of influence. Moreover, it should be a natural ally of the United States in the fight against Islamist extremism. A reduction of tension with Russia would allow the United States to concentrate on more important geopolitical issues.'
This is the kind of sober, non-partisan analysis one would expect to read from a leftist journalist. By contrast, Mason again reads like a hard-right Times or Telegraph neocon.
Mason continued:
'I think it is worth saying: "Fine, spend 41bn plus on a system that's designed never to be used militarily but that has kept the peace strategically."'
He was right to add the 'plus'. In 2014, the independent Trident Commission estimated that the missile system would have a lifetime cost of around £100 billion. Conservative Foreign Affairs Committee chair Crispin Blunt put the cost at £167 billion. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has estimated £205 billion.
Mason failed to explain that one might, for example, argue (although we do not) that nuclear weapons have helped keep the peace and are needed now, without backing the white elephant Trident system. But Mason wants to keep the message simple: We need Trident! See Ian Sinclair's detailed rebuttal of Mason's arguments here.
Joined: 30 Jul 2006 Posts: 6060 Location: East London
Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 3:52 pm Post subject:
Mason is clearly a fraud. Saddam did not try to 'bluff' that he had WMD; he bent over backwards in direct and back-channel diplomacy to stop the impending attack.
Remember, our own 'Left' is largely a 'faux Left', afraid to think for themselves over things like 9/11, Syria, Brexit etc.
Everyone must toe the 'Party Line'; they will not even engage in debate on anything outside it.
What Bruno Guigue says about the French 'Left' goes for ours too:
'Syria: French Academic Exposes Left-Wing Charlatans as Harbingers of Terrorism': http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/05/20/syria-french-academic-exposes-le ft-wing-charlatans-as-harbingers-of-terrorism/ _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Watch out for CNN's share price the next few days. Project Veritas have been given access to the audio files from behind the scenes at CNN.....oh dear.
How the Israel lobby is using Owen Jones
Asa Winstanley Lobby Watch 21 February 2017
Guardian columnist Owen Jones will headline an event for the Jewish Labour Movement, a group involved in Israel’s effort to thwart the Palestine solidarity movement. (Marc Lozano)
Last week the Jewish Labour Movement announced that Guardian columnist Owen Jones will be the big name speaker at an event the group is holding on 2 April.
Jones will lecture on “left anti-Semitism, the Middle East and the Labour Party.”
The Jewish Labour Movement scoring Jones appears to be a high-profile instance of a new push endorsed by Israel’s government to ensure that Palestine solidarity “instigators” are “singled out” from so-called “soft critics” of Israel.
According to The Jewish Daily Forward, the strategy – jointly developed by the Reut Institute and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) – “calls for a big tent approach that accepts progressive critics of Israel” while also demanding “an all-out assault on leading critics of Israel, sometimes using covert means.”
“The instigators must be singled out from the other groups, and handled uncompromisingly, publicly or covertly,” the Reut-ADL report states, according to The Forward, which obtained a copy on condition it not publish the entire document.
The Jewish Labour Movement, a pro-Israel organization within the UK’s main opposition Labour Party, appears to be on board with this strategy.
Al Jazeera’s recent undercover documentary The Lobby revealed the Jewish Labour Movement’s close ties to the Israeli embassy, as well as its campaign against BDS, the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.
Splitting the left
Following the announcement that Jones would headline the Jewish Labour Movement event, Nazareth-based journalist Jonathan Cook criticized the Guardian columnist for promoting a group “shown to be acting as a front for the Israeli government’s efforts” in Labour.
Jones replied with a blog post calling his critics conspiracy theorists and reaffirming that he was “very glad” to speak at this pro-Israel group’s event.
“I am a passionate opponent of anti-Semitism in all its forms, overt or subtle. It has to be fought, relentlessly, wherever it appears, including on the left,” Jones asserted – an implication that his critics might condone or tolerate anti-Semitism.
Whether Jones realizes it or not, he is facilitating the strategy of isolating Palestine solidarity campaigners by performing the role of “soft critic” of Israel.
Any division in Labour ranks over Jones’ decision will likely be seen by Jewish Labour Movement leaders as a success.
Indeed, undercover footage revealed by Al Jazeera last month shows Jewish Labour Movement chair Jeremy Newmark boasting in front of the Israeli ambassador that his group had “created a bit of division within Momentum” by convincing a close ally of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to speak at one of its events on “an openly Zionist JLM platform.”
Momentum is the left-wing faction in Labour established to support Corbyn.
At the private meeting between pro-Israel activists and Israeli ambassador Mark Regev at the Labour Party conference in September, Newmark also claimed that he had “intelligence” that Momentum’s “political directors” had “passed a vote of censure on Clive Lewis, just for coming to our meeting and speaking.”
Member of Parliament Clive Lewis was at the time shadow defense secretary and considered a rising star in the Labour Party.
Over the course of 2016, Corbyn, a veteran campaigner for Palestinian rights, faced a manufactured “anti-Semitism crisis,” that coincided with efforts to force him out as party leader.
Whipped up by right-wing figures in the party, along with internal pro-Israel groups such as Labour Friends of Israel, as well as by Jewish Labour Movement chair Jeremy Newmark, the allegations included exaggerated and, in some cases, wholly fabricated claims about anti-Semitism by party members.
Al Jazeera documentary The Lobby showed how a Labour Friends of Israel leader concocted a false allegation of anti-Semitic comments against a party member at last year’s Labour conference.
Failing strategy
A key part of the strategy pushed by Israel and its surrogates is to smear supporters of justice for Palestinians as anti-Semites.
In this context, the Jewish Labour Movement has promoted a discredited definition of anti-Semitism that conflates criticism of Israel and Zionism with anti-Semitism.
But the Reut-ADL report concludes that multi-million dollar efforts to combat BDS have “largely failed,” according to The Forward. The newspaper says that the report’s authors consider that the BDS movement “has grown twentyfold since 2010.” But they lament that anti-BDS “results remain elusive.”
The new Reut-ADL plan echoes reports in Israeli media last September that Israel’s strategic affairs ministry has been waging a “classified,” “under the radar” campaign of “black ops” against the BDS movement.
Amid reports of this covert campaign, a Palestinian human rights lawyer in The Hague has received anonymous death threats that are being investigated by Dutch police. The lawyer, from the human rights group Al-Haq, has been working with the International Criminal Court as it probes possible war crimes committed by Israel against Palestinians.
There have also been sophisticated cyber attacks against websites associated with the Palestine solidarity movement.
The ADL has a documented history of infiltrating and sabotaging US solidarity campaigns with Palestine, as well as campaigns against the South African apartheid regime.
Backed by Israel
Co-opting progressive figures, or “soft critics” of Israel, such as Clive Lewis and Owen Jones, is a key element of the Reut-ADL strategy – the proverbial carrot, to accompany the stick.
The Reut-ADL report appears to have been a year in the making, although its roots lie further back.
An influential Reut strategy in 2010 called on Israeli spy agencies to “sabotage” and focus on “attacking catalysts” in global centers of Palestine solidarity.
In a 2010 PowerPoint presentation, Reut’s founder Gidi Grinstein termed such cities as London, Madrid and the San Francisco bay area “hubs” of “delegitimization” which aim to “promote one man, one vote” in all of historic Palestine – as opposed to the current reality of a “Jewish state” alongside an Israeli occupation regime in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Grinstein, who revealed the new Reut-ADL strategy earlier this month, had said in his 2010 presentation that it was imperative to prevent the “implosion” or political collapse of Israel in a manner similar to the fall of the South African apartheid regime.
That strategy also called for “driving [a] wedge between soft and hard critics” of Israel and other Palestine solidarity activists Reut terms “delegitimizers” – mainly due to their support for BDS.
The Jewish Labour Movement’s Newmark said in 2010 that the Israel lobby group of which he was then chief executive had “contributed heavily to the compilation of the Reut report.”
Slide from a 2010 Reut Institute presentation at the Herzliya conference.
The 2017 Reut-ADL strategy places a renewed emphasis on embracing the so-called soft critics in order to isolate them from “instigators” and “delegitimizers” who call for effective measures to hold Israel accountable or who question Zionism, Israel’s state ideology.
Reut Institute and ADL leaders have boasted that their report has the backing of Israel’s strategic affairs ministry, which is spearheading the country’s anti-BDS effort. The JTA news agency calls this endorsement “an important signal that even a right-wing government favors the big tent.”
Enter Owen Jones
In his defense of his planned lecture for the Jewish Labour Movement, Owen Jones offers a message that is a fit with the Reut-ADL strategy.
Jones reaffirms his criticism of Israel’s “occupation of Palestine” and writes that he believes “in a just peace for both Arabs and Jews, providing security and peaceful coexistence. That process involves dialogue.”
But Jones says nothing about BDS or any other method to hold Israel to account. He did not reply on Twitter to questions from The Electronic Intifada’s Ali Abunimah asking if he supported a boycott of Israel.
In substance, Jones’ position is nearly identical to that of Labour Friends of Israel and the Jewish Labour Movement, which both ostensibly advocate a “two-state solution” but oppose all practical efforts to support Palestinian rights.
Indeed, the false accusation of anti-Semitism against the Labour Party member documented in the Al Jazeera film was conjured up because the member had challenged Labour Friends of Israel chair Joan Ryan over what her group proposed to do in order to stop Israeli settlements.
Labour Friends of Israel has campaigned even against boycotts of firms – such as G4S – that are directly involved in Israeli settlements and the abuse of Palestinians, including children, in military detention in the occupied West Bank.
Lawmakers affiliated with Labour Friends of Israel wrote to Labour leader Corbyn asserting that such boycotts “seek to delegitimize Israel and do nothing to further the cause of peace.”
Yet last month, Ryan introduced a bill in Parliament proposing an international fund to promote “coexistence” and “dialogue” between Israelis and Palestinians – language identical to that deployed by Owen Jones.
Such “dialogue” is promoted to deflect pressure from Israel and leave the status quo that the BDS movement seeks to change – Israeli occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid – intact.
Undercover footage showed Israeli embassy agent Shai Masot, second from left, conferring with Jewish Labour Movement leader Jeremy Newmark and Israeli ambassador Mark Regev.
The undercover footage of the private meeting at the Labour Conference shows Jeremy Newmark sitting next to Shai Masot, the Israeli embassy’s disgraced senior political officer.
Masot was forced to leave the UK last month after the Al Jazeera documentary’s revelations made headlines. He had been caught plotting to “take down” a senior government minister.
The documentary also showed him claiming credit for incubating a “Young Labour Friends of Israel” group.
After The Lobby aired, Jeremy Corbyn called for an investigation into Israel’s undue influence on British democracy.
In January, the chair of a powerful parliamentary committee announced that he would include the Shai Masot affair in a new Middle East inquiry.
Meanwhile, Israel lobby groups can chalk up a success with the recruitment of Owen Jones in their effort to split supporters of Palestinian rights.
Jewish Labour Movement Reut Institute BDS Anti-Defamation League Ministry of Strategic Affairs Gidi Grinstein South Africa apartheid Owen Jones Jeremy Newmark Mark Regev Shai Masot Ella Rose Jonathan Cook Labour Friends of Israel Yossi Melman Jeremy Corbyn Crispin Blunt Clive Lewis
Asa Winstanley's blog
Add new comment
Donate now
Comments
picture
Owen Jones
Hermann Dierkes replied on Tue, 02/21/2017 - 13:13
Up to now, I thought Owen Jones was a principled author and activist on the broader politicial left. Now as I come to know he has no problems to get involved in a bad maneuver by agents and fans of an oppressive colonial state I am very disappointed! Think it over Owen! In any case I will think it over buying Your books.
Hermann Dierkes
P.S. In my time as the president of the municipality faction of DIE LINKE in the city of Duisburg/Germany some years ago I was a state-wide target of a smear campaign after having publicly spoken out in favour of the BDS-movement
Reply
picture
a bit late, isn't it?
tom hall replied on Tue, 02/21/2017 - 15:29
The Guardian has been leading the charge against Labour since Jeremy Corbyn's first election as party leader. And the paper has conspicuously focused on the torrent of spurious antisemitism accusations emanating from the Israeli embassy and its front groups. In that respect, Jonathan Freedland's key position as ideological enforcer at the Guardian- opinion and comment editor- has played a considerable role. Of late the paper has decided to throw Owen Jones into the fray, being their last available "progressive" contributor with a reputation left to lose and willing to lose it. In committing Jones, they've pretty much reached the end of the line. Britons who support Palestinian rights will not be led into a cul-de-sac by transparent distractions of this type.
Reply
picture
YES, THE GUARDIAN ITSELF IS THE REAL DISGRACE
JOHN CHUCKMAN replied on Tue, 02/21/2017 - 16:24
The Guardian's treatment of Corbyn was beyond contempt. The paper has turned into a propaganda rag, albeit a very glossy one.
Almost night and day attacks over alleged anti-Semitism, the very stuff of Senator McCarthy in the 1950s United States. All without foundation. Just throwing mud.
They love Tony Blair and his acolytes, and Tony Blair was what he was - assistant mass killer in Iraq and winner of the Israel Peace Medal (if you can believe that name) - simply because he was a complete sell-out to the Israel Lobby. That's really the underlying text of "New Labour."
Reply
picture
Wobbler
Artemis replied on Wed, 02/22/2017 - 00:11
Owen Jones has been wobbly on other issues, although this is a shocker. I agree with Tom Hall that (the increasing number of..) Britons who support Palestinian rights, and are appalled by Israel's brutal occupation with its web of associated illegal acts, won't be distracted by Owen Jones. Rather, they will put ever more pieces together to understand how these so-called 'Friends' operate and how unfriendly they are when faced with moral and humane criticism of unacceptable racism and exceptionalism, settler land grabs, illegal detainment without trial, torture and mass slaughter of Palestinians.....the list is long.
Reply
picture
"Anti-Semitism"
Zionism Is Not Judaism replied on Tue, 02/21/2017 - 15:48
Odd, when criminal imperialists and Torah desecrating racist settler colonists ethnically cleanse and subject Arabs (who are Semites) to pogroms that is not anti-Semitism. But when anyone speaks out against that, it is.
This fellow, Jones, seems like a hypocritical toad.
PS. It is time for the imperialist mafia to leave the Levant and NATO to fold. The WAR RACKET has to go.
Reply
picture
OWEN JONES PREACHING ABOUT ANTI-SEMITISM
JOHN CHUCKMAN replied on Tue, 02/21/2017 - 16:10
Well, they are welcome to him.
I know Owen Jones' writing well.
He is one of the most ineffectual columnists in The Guardian, even when he is not writing about "anti-Semitism."
Many of his typical pieces are headlined with words like "We must..." "We should..." "We should be prepared..."
They are the words of a preachy, almost Sunday School teacher-type. Quite tedious.
Indeed, here is my comment on a piece of his from some while back. I think it gives a good idea of what Owen Jones is about:
Reply
picture
At each other's throats
Mark replied on Tue, 02/21/2017 - 16:36
As always the left is at again, at each other's throats. No wonder the Left in UK is in shambles and offering no alternative to the Tory government, and that working people with a desire for social justice are in despair.
Reply
picture
"the left is at it again"
Artemis replied on Wed, 02/22/2017 - 12:19
Speak for yourself. I also see enormous support within the left, generosity, caring and serious debate. The vicious, underhand maligning and undermining of others comes primarily from groups and individuals one can hardly describe as left, even if they belong to Labour.
The left being "at each other's throats" contains as little truth as accusations of whole-scale antisemitism.
Reply
picture
Owen Jones
Sunny Puri replied on Tue, 02/21/2017 - 16:58
I am very disappointed in Owen, for being played so easily. I'll still listen to his speech very carefully to see how he intends to achieve full Palestinian human and national rights in such ideologically bankrupt surroundings
Reply
picture
Owen Jones
Tony Greenstein replied on Tue, 02/21/2017 - 17:19
Ther problem with this post is that it treats Owen Jones as an unwitting object and dupe of Israeli machinations. Jones is conscious of what he is doing. He is someone who started on the left and has moved to the right. WIthin Momentum he supported the coup of Jon Lansman, who has openly worked with the JLM and Jeremy Newmark.
I have written a lot about Jones and his political shift because it has wider lessons. In essence Jones bought into the idea, beginning with Operation Protective Edge, that opposition to the Israeli state and Zionism was 'anti-Semitic'. He is into identity politics and the claims of Jews to be oppressed are of equal validity to Palestinians.
He has blown hot and cold over supporting Jeremy Corbyn and is widely seen as an opportunist. Without understanding the politics of the subject then you treat Israeli plots and machinations in political isolation. Zionist targetting of soft supporters of the Palestinians would not happen if anti-Zionism was at the core of Palestine solidarity. Treating the Palestinian question as simply a human rights issue means that it is possible to remain a left Zionist and a Palestinian supporter.
Below are my blog on Jones
Owen Jones – the Final Betrayal - Supporting Zionist Apartheid & the Jewish Labour Movement
http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2...
Lansman’s Scorched Earth War Against Democracy in Momentum
Owen Jones – the Nick Cohen of Tomorrow
http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2...
Gaza Reveals the Empty and Vacuous Heart of Owen Jones’s writing
Owen Jones – Concerned About 'anti-Semitism' and using the Holocaust to Excuse Israel's murder of 2,000 Palestinians
http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2...
Owen Jones’ Obsession with ‘anti-Semitism’
http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2... _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
How the Israel lobby is using Owen Jones
Asa Winstanley Lobby Watch 21 February 2017
Guardian columnist Owen Jones will headline an event for the Jewish Labour Movement, a group involved in Israel’s effort to thwart the Palestine solidarity movement. (Marc Lozano)
Last week the Jewish Labour Movement announced that Guardian columnist Owen Jones will be the big name speaker at an event the group is holding on 2 April.
Jones will lecture on “left anti-Semitism, the Middle East and the Labour Party.”
The Jewish Labour Movement scoring Jones appears to be a high-profile instance of a new push endorsed by Israel’s government to ensure that Palestine solidarity “instigators” are “singled out” from so-called “soft critics” of Israel.
According to The Jewish Daily Forward, the strategy – jointly developed by the Reut Institute and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) – “calls for a big tent approach that accepts progressive critics of Israel” while also demanding “an all-out assault on leading critics of Israel, sometimes using covert means.”
“The instigators must be singled out from the other groups, and handled uncompromisingly, publicly or covertly,” the Reut-ADL report states, according to The Forward, which obtained a copy on condition it not publish the entire document.
The Jewish Labour Movement, a pro-Israel organization within the UK’s main opposition Labour Party, appears to be on board with this strategy.
Al Jazeera’s recent undercover documentary The Lobby revealed the Jewish Labour Movement’s close ties to the Israeli embassy, as well as its campaign against BDS, the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.
Splitting the left
Following the announcement that Jones would headline the Jewish Labour Movement event, Nazareth-based journalist Jonathan Cook criticized the Guardian columnist for promoting a group “shown to be acting as a front for the Israeli government’s efforts” in Labour.
Jones replied with a blog post calling his critics conspiracy theorists and reaffirming that he was “very glad” to speak at this pro-Israel group’s event.
“I am a passionate opponent of anti-Semitism in all its forms, overt or subtle. It has to be fought, relentlessly, wherever it appears, including on the left,” Jones asserted – an implication that his critics might condone or tolerate anti-Semitism.
Whether Jones realizes it or not, he is facilitating the strategy of isolating Palestine solidarity campaigners by performing the role of “soft critic” of Israel.
Any division in Labour ranks over Jones’ decision will likely be seen by Jewish Labour Movement leaders as a success.
Indeed, undercover footage revealed by Al Jazeera last month shows Jewish Labour Movement chair Jeremy Newmark boasting in front of the Israeli ambassador that his group had “created a bit of division within Momentum” by convincing a close ally of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to speak at one of its events on “an openly Zionist JLM platform.”
Momentum is the left-wing faction in Labour established to support Corbyn.
At the private meeting between pro-Israel activists and Israeli ambassador Mark Regev at the Labour Party conference in September, Newmark also claimed that he had “intelligence” that Momentum’s “political directors” had “passed a vote of censure on Clive Lewis, just for coming to our meeting and speaking.”
Member of Parliament Clive Lewis was at the time shadow defense secretary and considered a rising star in the Labour Party.
Over the course of 2016, Corbyn, a veteran campaigner for Palestinian rights, faced a manufactured “anti-Semitism crisis,” that coincided with efforts to force him out as party leader.
Whipped up by right-wing figures in the party, along with internal pro-Israel groups such as Labour Friends of Israel, as well as by Jewish Labour Movement chair Jeremy Newmark, the allegations included exaggerated and, in some cases, wholly fabricated claims about anti-Semitism by party members.
Al Jazeera documentary The Lobby showed how a Labour Friends of Israel leader concocted a false allegation of anti-Semitic comments against a party member at last year’s Labour conference.
Failing strategy
A key part of the strategy pushed by Israel and its surrogates is to smear supporters of justice for Palestinians as anti-Semites.
In this context, the Jewish Labour Movement has promoted a discredited definition of anti-Semitism that conflates criticism of Israel and Zionism with anti-Semitism.
But the Reut-ADL report concludes that multi-million dollar efforts to combat BDS have “largely failed,” according to The Forward. The newspaper says that the report’s authors consider that the BDS movement “has grown twentyfold since 2010.” But they lament that anti-BDS “results remain elusive.”
The new Reut-ADL plan echoes reports in Israeli media last September that Israel’s strategic affairs ministry has been waging a “classified,” “under the radar” campaign of “black ops” against the BDS movement.
Amid reports of this covert campaign, a Palestinian human rights lawyer in The Hague has received anonymous death threats that are being investigated by Dutch police. The lawyer, from the human rights group Al-Haq, has been working with the International Criminal Court as it probes possible war crimes committed by Israel against Palestinians.
There have also been sophisticated cyber attacks against websites associated with the Palestine solidarity movement.
The ADL has a documented history of infiltrating and sabotaging US solidarity campaigns with Palestine, as well as campaigns against the South African apartheid regime.
Backed by Israel
Co-opting progressive figures, or “soft critics” of Israel, such as Clive Lewis and Owen Jones, is a key element of the Reut-ADL strategy – the proverbial carrot, to accompany the stick.
The Reut-ADL report appears to have been a year in the making, although its roots lie further back.
An influential Reut strategy in 2010 called on Israeli spy agencies to “sabotage” and focus on “attacking catalysts” in global centers of Palestine solidarity.
In a 2010 PowerPoint presentation, Reut’s founder Gidi Grinstein termed such cities as London, Madrid and the San Francisco bay area “hubs” of “delegitimization” which aim to “promote one man, one vote” in all of historic Palestine – as opposed to the current reality of a “Jewish state” alongside an Israeli occupation regime in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Grinstein, who revealed the new Reut-ADL strategy earlier this month, had said in his 2010 presentation that it was imperative to prevent the “implosion” or political collapse of Israel in a manner similar to the fall of the South African apartheid regime.
That strategy also called for “driving [a] wedge between soft and hard critics” of Israel and other Palestine solidarity activists Reut terms “delegitimizers” – mainly due to their support for BDS.
The Jewish Labour Movement’s Newmark said in 2010 that the Israel lobby group of which he was then chief executive had “contributed heavily to the compilation of the Reut report.”
Slide from a 2010 Reut Institute presentation at the Herzliya conference.
The 2017 Reut-ADL strategy places a renewed emphasis on embracing the so-called soft critics in order to isolate them from “instigators” and “delegitimizers” who call for effective measures to hold Israel accountable or who question Zionism, Israel’s state ideology.
Reut Institute and ADL leaders have boasted that their report has the backing of Israel’s strategic affairs ministry, which is spearheading the country’s anti-BDS effort. The JTA news agency calls this endorsement “an important signal that even a right-wing government favors the big tent.”
Enter Owen Jones
In his defense of his planned lecture for the Jewish Labour Movement, Owen Jones offers a message that is a fit with the Reut-ADL strategy.
Jones reaffirms his criticism of Israel’s “occupation of Palestine” and writes that he believes “in a just peace for both Arabs and Jews, providing security and peaceful coexistence. That process involves dialogue.”
But Jones says nothing about BDS or any other method to hold Israel to account. He did not reply on Twitter to questions from The Electronic Intifada’s Ali Abunimah asking if he supported a boycott of Israel.
In substance, Jones’ position is nearly identical to that of Labour Friends of Israel and the Jewish Labour Movement, which both ostensibly advocate a “two-state solution” but oppose all practical efforts to support Palestinian rights.
Indeed, the false accusation of anti-Semitism against the Labour Party member documented in the Al Jazeera film was conjured up because the member had challenged Labour Friends of Israel chair Joan Ryan over what her group proposed to do in order to stop Israeli settlements.
Labour Friends of Israel has campaigned even against boycotts of firms – such as G4S – that are directly involved in Israeli settlements and the abuse of Palestinians, including children, in military detention in the occupied West Bank.
Lawmakers affiliated with Labour Friends of Israel wrote to Labour leader Corbyn asserting that such boycotts “seek to delegitimize Israel and do nothing to further the cause of peace.”
Yet last month, Ryan introduced a bill in Parliament proposing an international fund to promote “coexistence” and “dialogue” between Israelis and Palestinians – language identical to that deployed by Owen Jones.
Such “dialogue” is promoted to deflect pressure from Israel and leave the status quo that the BDS movement seeks to change – Israeli occupation, settler-colonialism and apartheid – intact.
Undercover footage showed Israeli embassy agent Shai Masot, second from left, conferring with Jewish Labour Movement leader Jeremy Newmark and Israeli ambassador Mark Regev.
The undercover footage of the private meeting at the Labour Conference shows Jeremy Newmark sitting next to Shai Masot, the Israeli embassy’s disgraced senior political officer.
Masot was forced to leave the UK last month after the Al Jazeera documentary’s revelations made headlines. He had been caught plotting to “take down” a senior government minister.
The documentary also showed him claiming credit for incubating a “Young Labour Friends of Israel” group.
After The Lobby aired, Jeremy Corbyn called for an investigation into Israel’s undue influence on British democracy.
In January, the chair of a powerful parliamentary committee announced that he would include the Shai Masot affair in a new Middle East inquiry.
Meanwhile, Israel lobby groups can chalk up a success with the recruitment of Owen Jones in their effort to split supporters of Palestinian rights.
Jewish Labour Movement Reut Institute BDS Anti-Defamation League Ministry of Strategic Affairs Gidi Grinstein South Africa apartheid Owen Jones Jeremy Newmark Mark Regev Shai Masot Ella Rose Jonathan Cook Labour Friends of Israel Yossi Melman Jeremy Corbyn Crispin Blunt Clive Lewis
Asa Winstanley's blog
Add new comment
Donate now
Comments
picture
Owen Jones
Hermann Dierkes replied on Tue, 02/21/2017 - 13:13
Up to now, I thought Owen Jones was a principled author and activist on the broader politicial left. Now as I come to know he has no problems to get involved in a bad maneuver by agents and fans of an oppressive colonial state I am very disappointed! Think it over Owen! In any case I will think it over buying Your books.
Hermann Dierkes
P.S. In my time as the president of the municipality faction of DIE LINKE in the city of Duisburg/Germany some years ago I was a state-wide target of a smear campaign after having publicly spoken out in favour of the BDS-movement
Reply
picture
a bit late, isn't it?
tom hall replied on Tue, 02/21/2017 - 15:29
The Guardian has been leading the charge against Labour since Jeremy Corbyn's first election as party leader. And the paper has conspicuously focused on the torrent of spurious antisemitism accusations emanating from the Israeli embassy and its front groups. In that respect, Jonathan Freedland's key position as ideological enforcer at the Guardian- opinion and comment editor- has played a considerable role. Of late the paper has decided to throw Owen Jones into the fray, being their last available "progressive" contributor with a reputation left to lose and willing to lose it. In committing Jones, they've pretty much reached the end of the line. Britons who support Palestinian rights will not be led into a cul-de-sac by transparent distractions of this type.
Reply
picture
YES, THE GUARDIAN ITSELF IS THE REAL DISGRACE
JOHN CHUCKMAN replied on Tue, 02/21/2017 - 16:24
The Guardian's treatment of Corbyn was beyond contempt. The paper has turned into a propaganda rag, albeit a very glossy one.
Almost night and day attacks over alleged anti-Semitism, the very stuff of Senator McCarthy in the 1950s United States. All without foundation. Just throwing mud.
They love Tony Blair and his acolytes, and Tony Blair was what he was - assistant mass killer in Iraq and winner of the Israel Peace Medal (if you can believe that name) - simply because he was a complete sell-out to the Israel Lobby. That's really the underlying text of "New Labour."
Reply
picture
Wobbler
Artemis replied on Wed, 02/22/2017 - 00:11
Owen Jones has been wobbly on other issues, although this is a shocker. I agree with Tom Hall that (the increasing number of..) Britons who support Palestinian rights, and are appalled by Israel's brutal occupation with its web of associated illegal acts, won't be distracted by Owen Jones. Rather, they will put ever more pieces together to understand how these so-called 'Friends' operate and how unfriendly they are when faced with moral and humane criticism of unacceptable racism and exceptionalism, settler land grabs, illegal detainment without trial, torture and mass slaughter of Palestinians.....the list is long.
Reply
picture
"Anti-Semitism"
Zionism Is Not Judaism replied on Tue, 02/21/2017 - 15:48
Odd, when criminal imperialists and Torah desecrating racist settler colonists ethnically cleanse and subject Arabs (who are Semites) to pogroms that is not anti-Semitism. But when anyone speaks out against that, it is.
This fellow, Jones, seems like a hypocritical toad.
PS. It is time for the imperialist mafia to leave the Levant and NATO to fold. The WAR RACKET has to go.
Reply
picture
OWEN JONES PREACHING ABOUT ANTI-SEMITISM
JOHN CHUCKMAN replied on Tue, 02/21/2017 - 16:10
Well, they are welcome to him.
I know Owen Jones' writing well.
He is one of the most ineffectual columnists in The Guardian, even when he is not writing about "anti-Semitism."
Many of his typical pieces are headlined with words like "We must..." "We should..." "We should be prepared..."
They are the words of a preachy, almost Sunday School teacher-type. Quite tedious.
Indeed, here is my comment on a piece of his from some while back. I think it gives a good idea of what Owen Jones is about:
Reply
picture
At each other's throats
Mark replied on Tue, 02/21/2017 - 16:36
As always the left is at again, at each other's throats. No wonder the Left in UK is in shambles and offering no alternative to the Tory government, and that working people with a desire for social justice are in despair.
Reply
picture
"the left is at it again"
Artemis replied on Wed, 02/22/2017 - 12:19
Speak for yourself. I also see enormous support within the left, generosity, caring and serious debate. The vicious, underhand maligning and undermining of others comes primarily from groups and individuals one can hardly describe as left, even if they belong to Labour.
The left being "at each other's throats" contains as little truth as accusations of whole-scale antisemitism.
Reply
picture
Owen Jones
Sunny Puri replied on Tue, 02/21/2017 - 16:58
I am very disappointed in Owen, for being played so easily. I'll still listen to his speech very carefully to see how he intends to achieve full Palestinian human and national rights in such ideologically bankrupt surroundings
Reply
picture
Owen Jones
Tony Greenstein replied on Tue, 02/21/2017 - 17:19
Ther problem with this post is that it treats Owen Jones as an unwitting object and dupe of Israeli machinations. Jones is conscious of what he is doing. He is someone who started on the left and has moved to the right. WIthin Momentum he supported the coup of Jon Lansman, who has openly worked with the JLM and Jeremy Newmark.
I have written a lot about Jones and his political shift because it has wider lessons. In essence Jones bought into the idea, beginning with Operation Protective Edge, that opposition to the Israeli state and Zionism was 'anti-Semitic'. He is into identity politics and the claims of Jews to be oppressed are of equal validity to Palestinians.
He has blown hot and cold over supporting Jeremy Corbyn and is widely seen as an opportunist. Without understanding the politics of the subject then you treat Israeli plots and machinations in political isolation. Zionist targetting of soft supporters of the Palestinians would not happen if anti-Zionism was at the core of Palestine solidarity. Treating the Palestinian question as simply a human rights issue means that it is possible to remain a left Zionist and a Palestinian supporter.
Below are my blog on Jones
Owen Jones – the Final Betrayal - Supporting Zionist Apartheid & the Jewish Labour Movement
http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2...
Lansman’s Scorched Earth War Against Democracy in Momentum
Owen Jones – the Nick Cohen of Tomorrow
http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2...
Gaza Reveals the Empty and Vacuous Heart of Owen Jones’s writing
Owen Jones – Concerned About 'anti-Semitism' and using the Holocaust to Excuse Israel's murder of 2,000 Palestinians
http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2...
Owen Jones’ Obsession with ‘anti-Semitism’
http://azvsas.blogspot.co.uk/2... _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Breaking: Adams & Jones Taken Down by Google/CIA Prior to Big Event- Trump Needs to Beware
www.thecommonsenseshow.com
- The censorship of the Independent Media has begun in earnest by Jeff Bezos and Google. On my last radio show (2/19), Mike Adams revealed that he was contacted and was told “We will pay you $50,000 to provide us
‘…The censorship of the Independent Media has begun in earnest by Jeff Bezos and Google.
On my last radio show (2/19), Mike Adams revealed that he was contacted and was told “We will pay you $50,000 to provide us with damaging information against Alex Jones. If you do not help us, we will destroy you”.
In the PM on February 22, 2017, Mike Adams reached out to me and informed me that Google’s search engines have removed all 140,000 pages of content from Natural News (www.naturalnews.com). If the reader puts Natural News in the Google search engine, it comes back as http://www.natural.news.com. This is Mike’s back up site which is a shell of his original site.
Technology News
www.natural.news.com
CNET news editors and reporters provide top technology news, with investigative reporting and in-depth coverage of tech issues and events.
Given the time proximity between the attempt to blackmail Mike Adams and Google’s takedown of one of one of the biggest websites in the Independent Media, it is too suspicious to be considered to be a mere coincidence. It is clear from just the circumstantial evidence, that entities representing Google tried to blackmail Mike Adams into providing damning information about Alex Jones and then when Mike did not respond, they took him down.
In the same time frame, Alex Jones lost $3 million in Google advertising revenue which serves to validate the Mike Adams’ claim that he was indeed blackmailed in an attempt to destroy Alex Jones…..’
‘..INSURGE INTELLIGENCE, a new crowd-funded investigative journalism project, breaks the exclusive story of how the United States intelligence community funded, nurtured and incubated Google as part of a drive to dominate the world through control of information. Seed-funded by the NSA and CIA, Google was merely the first among a plethora of private sector start-ups co-opted by US intelligence to retain ‘information superiority.’
The origins of this ingenious strategy trace back to a secret Pentagon-sponsored group, that for the last two decades has functioned as a bridge between the US government and elites across the business, industry, finance, corporate, and media sectors. The group has allowed some of the most powerful special interests in corporate America to systematically circumvent democratic accountability and the rule of law to influence government policies, as well as public opinion in the US and around the world. The results have been catastrophic: NSA mass surveillance, a permanent state of global war, and a new initiative to transform the US military into Skynet…’
There is also a Part 2:
'Why the CIA made Google – Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet’:
Taking the recent escalation in global conspiracy theories, according to which such and such president is a Manchurian Candidate of this or that foreign power, to their next comedic level, on Friday the Czech Republic’s conservative Euroskeptic president, Milos Zeman, declared that he is an agent of not only Putin, but also various other leaders and nations, during a press conference where he announced his intention to run for a second term. Speaking in Prague, Zeman launched his 2018 re-election campaign, and during the televized event vowed not to change his controversial conservative platform, which includes prioritizing Czech interests over pan-European ones.
Zeman has often been at odds with the government of Social Democrat Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka, which has been a supporter of Brussels on issues like anti-Russian sanctions and immigration. Though largely a figurehead like in many other European states, with limited executive authority in the Czech Republic, Zeman, who won the office in 2013, remains one of the country’s most popular figures, especially in the villages. Among other policies frowned upon by Brussels, he has advocated nurturing closer ties with Russia and China, supporting Israel, and limiting the inflow of asylum seekers from Muslim nations.
Czech President Milos Zeman, Reuters
When asked by a Russian TV channel whether he was concerned about being branded a Russian agent, Zeman - who like Trump has been accused of having a pro-Russian bias by the local press - satirized the Czech media for criticizing his position on Moscow.
“I am an agent of Russia, and particularly of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin” he declared, speaking in Russian. “I should add that I am also an agent of the Chinese President. Lately also of the new American President. I am an agent of Israel, which I have been supporting all this time.”
On a more serious note, he then clarified by saying that, in reality he is the agent of only one country, the Czech Republic
Zeman said media criticism was among the factors that had prompted him to seek re-election. “Each of their attacks encouraged me more to run. Thank you, Czech media,” he explained.
As RT adds, the only other contender for the presidency is businessman and writer Michal Horacek, who has launched a campaign with the slogan “We can do better.”
Zeman will name the country’s next prime minister before he leaves office. Sobotka’s Social Democrats are running an uphill battle against their ruling coalition rivals, the ANO movement of billionaire Finance Minister Andrej Babis. In taking a page out of the Trump playbook, Babis' campaign is based on rooting out corruption and running the country like his business, an idea that resonates favorably with many voters.
Sobotka, who won the party’s leadership on Friday, argues that Babis dislikes democracy and has conflicts of interests. Zeman may favor Babis over Sobodka to form a new coalition government, if neither party wins a majority of parliamentary seats in October. _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
'On March 2, 2017, the Arkansas Times revealed that Republican State Rep. Kim Hendren had introduced a bill intended to outlaw the teaching of "books or any other material authored by or concerning Howard Zinn" in Arkansas public schools. Zinn, a historian who passed away in 2010, is best known for his work, A People's History of the United States, which tells the American narrative from the perspective of the historically downtrodden, those swept under the rug in the myth of "American exceptionalism."
It is understandable, then, why a politician like Hendren would desire to limit student access to Zinn's work in Arkansas schools. The historian's ideas are, after all, intended to challenge precisely the orthodoxies that the Republican Party (in particular) wants to maintain. Hendren also isn't the first to respond to Zinn's work with the will to censor. In 2010, then-Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels attempted to ban Zinn's works from classrooms, claiming that young people were being "force-fed a totally false version of our history." And in 2011, Zinn's books were removed from Tucson, Arizona, classrooms as part of a ban on a Mexican-American studies curriculum. What is surprising, however, is Hendren's statement to Reason Magazine that the bill is intended so schools spend equal time teaching opposing political viewpoints so students are not "indoctrinated" into one point of view. The irony abounds. Regardless, the story speaks precisely to why we have the First Amendment, so that those in power are prevented from shutting down dissenting viewpoints.....' _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaNddfV9QRQ _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
With the increasing propaganda wars, we thought a reminder of just how naive many Westerners are when it comes to their news-feed. As Arjun Walia, of GlobalResearch.ca, notes, Dr. Ulfkotte went on public television stating that he was forced to publish the works of intelligence agents under his own name, also adding that noncompliance with these orders would result in him losing his job.
He recently made an appearance on RT news to share these facts:
I’ve been a journalist for about 25 years, and I was educated to lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth to the public.
But seeing right now within the last months how the German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia — this is a point of no return and I’m going to stand up and say it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do and have done in the past because they are bribed to betray the people, not only in Germany, all over Europe.
It’s important to keep in mind that Dr. Ulfkotte is not the only person making these claims; multiple reporters have done the same and this kind of truthfulness is something the world needs more of.
One (out of many) great examples of a whistleblowing reporter is investigative journalist and former CBC News reporter Sharyl Attkisson.
She delivered a hard-hitting TEDx talk showing how fake grassroots movements funded by political, corporate, or other special interests very effectively manipulate and distort media messages.
Another great example is Amber Lyon, a three-time Emmy award winning journalist at CC, who said that they are routinely paid by the US government and foreign governments to selectively report and even distort information on certain events. She has also indicated that the government has editorial control over content.
Ever since Operation Mockingbird, a CIA-based initiative to control mainstream media, more and more people are expressing their concern that what we see in the media is nothing short of brainwashing.
This is also evident by blatant lies that continue to spam the TV screen, especially when it comes to topics such as health, food, war (‘terrorism‘), poverty, and more.
Things have not changed, in fact, when in comes to mainstream media distorting information and telling lies. They have gotten much worse in recent years, in fact, so it is highly encouraging that more people are starting to see through these lies, even without the help of whistleblowers like Dr. Ulfkotte.
One great example is the supposed ‘war on terror,’ or ‘false flag terrorism.’ There are evenWikileaks documents alluding to the fact that the United States government planned to “retaliate and cause pain” to countries refusing GMOs.
Mainstream media’s continual support of GMOs rages on, despite the fact that a number of countries are now banning these products.
'...Snowden NSA Files, “Art of Deception” slide. This is an outline of how US and British intelligence agencies conspired with the corporate media and social media networks to condition and “exploit” the masses using stress and other herding techniques. Pay particular attention to the Affect and Behavior blocks where cognitive and physiological stress is exploited for shared affect, and Behavior, where simulated action channels behavior. The objective was to mislead and emotionally subjugate the American people in the face of overwhelming evidence challenging “official” narratives. When you think of fear-mongering, which network first comes to mind? FOX News? CNN? Both employ PSYOPS specialists, and CNN’s Anderson Cooper is himself CIA.
How a person can experience a fear reaction before being consciously aware of the stimulus. Your brain is wired to learn to associate fear with a visual image without thought. Cable and mainstream news is visual imagery and sound, which means they can and do program fear to predict and manipulate your behavior.
“Terror is a salutary thing…The most effective method has at all times been terror or violence… terror and violence… is the weapon which most readily conquers reason.”
“Terror at the place of employment, in the factory, in the meeting hall, and on the occasion of mass demonstrations will always be successful unless opposed by equal terror….The defeated adversary in most cases despairs of the success of any further resistance.”
“Violence is broken only by violence and terror by terror. Only terror is capable of smashing terror.”
“This is a tactic based on precise calculation of all human weaknesses and its result will lead to success with almost mathematical certainty… the importance of physical terror toward the individual and the masses…the psychological effect can be calculated with precision…Shameless spiritual terrorization…the hideous abuse of their human freedom…ruthless force and brutality… they always submit in the end.”
–Adolf Hitler .......' _________________ 'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.
Research comes with two basic elements and those are Desk and Field research.
Both have to be thorough, are based upon the ABC principle and that is Accept Nothing Believe Nobody and Confirm Everything.
I worked at the BBC 1974-1982 as an untrained researcher on undercover assignments on Copyright Contract meaning I would sell my Research Report and it's Copyright to the BBC. My job was to infiltrate companies that were operating illegally and/or immorally in Consumer Affairs in General Features. My work was sometimes tested by BBC Barristers before clearance for scripting and transmission.
Some of my work included the setting up of covert recording which was not for transmission only for evidence gathering only and permission was required from the Director General.
In my time there were 3 DG's. The taking of photographs were allowed at my discretion and I had access to specialist camera equipment. The reason the BBC engaged my services was because I was not educated at Oxford or Cambridge nor any other university but the BBC usually recruited people who were selected by a Board, my accent would not have fitted and I was not of the-right-type for an institution like the BBC. The Boards usually numbering three and the only time I was faced with a Board is when I left Television and followed my own path and became a Staff Member in BBC Radio Training at the then LH Langham House, now a Hotel. To gain employment in the Main Stream Media you need to be of a certain type to fit-in.
The newsrooms are fed 'The News' principally by Associated Press and Reuters who are owned by the same 1% who own 50% of the Worlds Wealth. In short there are 8,000 people who run the World create wars and manipulate us. Within this group are the 13 inbred families like the Rothschild's, Rockefeller's The Windsor Family and others most who hide in the shadows behind leadership of the corporations and have infiltrated at the highest levels in the Media Military Intelligence Agency's Food Production Pharmaceuticals Financial Institutions and many more that affect all of our lives and they operate as one-unit shearing the same or very similar DNA.
from Facebook
The taking of Syria was planned a very long time ago along with Iraq Afghanistan and Iran and the WILL NOT STOP. Understanding that there is a real conspiracy or at least have an open mind and dig deep into History Banking and so forth. Also, anytime there his an event and you have the means HIT RECORD as that's where the best clues are and eyewitnesses write down their names...or experts and track them down.
I recorded the Nice France lorry attack and took the name of someone with a mobile phone who recorded the lorry who had not anyone or anything. Why, would anyone be recording a plain lorry? He turned out to be a leader of a Zionist Group at Cambridge University. Apparently the lorry driver was shot BUT nobody else died. It was faked to keep the momentum of the fear of the public terror going.
I should stop now but just one more thing. Why would Russia poison anyone in Salisbury? Why would Assad gas his own people? As well as the above an open mind breeds common sense and allows you to see the Bleeding Obvious! Thank you for your work Vanessa Beeley. _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Last Friday Richard Gage was due on the digital 'talk radio' George Galloway show at 8pm. He was due to come to Bristol and do two hours on the radio but on the previous Wednesday that trip was cancelled on the Galloway promise of a big TALK RADIO audience.
So Richard did a phone radio interview with us from 6-7pm which was, as ever, brilliant.
But just after Richard put the phone down at 7pm Galloway's assistant, who'd been impossible to contact on the Thursday, called to cancel the interview.
'Something big' had come up: a school shooting in Texas. _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
10th June 2018 Home, Highlights, Israel
Media propaganda slaves
By Uri Avnery
It’s frightening. Unprincipled psychologists, in the service of a malignant regime, use sophisticated techniques in order to control the mind of a person from afar.
The term “brainwashing” was born in 1950. It is a Chinese word (xinao, literally wash brain). Originally, it served to describe a technique used – so it was claimed – by Chinese masterminds to manipulate the minds of American prisoners in the Korean War. They changed their unconscious mental processes and turned them into agents of sinister forces.
Many books and movies purported to show how this works. For example, the classic film, The Manchurian Candidate, shows how the communists take an American prisoner-of-war in the Korean war, an officer, manipulate his mind and give him an order to kill the US presidential candidate. The American officer does not know that he has been turned unconsciously into a communist agent. He does not remember the order given to him under hypnosis and does not know that he acts accordingly.
This plot is ridiculous, like most of the pseudo-scientific descriptions. In practice, it is much easier to manipulate the minds of people, individuals and collectives.
For example, the Nazi propaganda. It was invented by Adolf Hitler himself. In his book, Mein Kampf, he describes how, as a soldier on the Western front in World War II, he witnessed the extremely successful British propaganda. The British dropped leaflets over the German trenches and shattered the soldiers’ confidence in their leadership.
When Hitler came to power in Germany, he entrusted one of his faithful henchmen, Joseph Goebbels, with the creation of a Ministry of Propaganda. Goebbels turned propaganda into an art form. Among other means, he turned all the German media – newspapers and the radio – into government agencies. In German that was called Gleichschaltung – connecting all components to one electric line. Thanks to this, Nazi Germany continued fighting long after it was clear that it had lost World War II.
One of the means was the disconnection of the German public from any other source of information. The official propaganda was blared from every medium. Listening to a foreign broadcast was a major crime, punished severely.
Thus, it happened that the Germans still believed in their final victory – the Endsieg – even after the Soviets in the East and the Anglo-Saxons in the West had already crossed the borders into Germany.
Does it take a dictatorial regime – Nazi or Communist – to turn the media into a brainwashing machine? Common sense says that this is impossible in a democracy. Common sense is wrong.
A brainwashing machine
It will be remembered that Hitler attained power by democratic means. Even now, fanatical nationalists are winning democratic elections in many countries. All their leaders are busy destroying the courts, stuffing the parliaments with useful idiots and – especially – turning the media into brainwashing instruments. In our country [Israel], too.
How is this done? It’s quite simple, really: one has to suppress all other voices. One has to make sure that the citizen hears only one voice. One that repeats a few messages over and over, endlessly. This way the lie becomes truth.
In such a situation, the ordinary citizen becomes convinced that the official line is really their own personal opinion. This is an unconscious process. When one tells a citizen that they are brainwashed, they are deeply insulted.
The events on the Gaza Strip border have activated a mechanism of brainwashing that dictatorial regimes in the world can only envy.
This has been happening in Israel over the last few years. The citizen is not conscious that it is happening. He or she absorbs diverse newspapers, TV programmes and radio broadcasts, and sees that all these media are freely arguing with each other and even quarreling with each other. The citizen is not conscious of the fact that on the one critical subject of our life – war and peace – all the media are “connected” to one singular line of brainwashing.
During the last few weeks we have been seeing a perfect example of this mechanism. The events on the Gaza Strip border have activated a mechanism of brainwashing that dictatorial regimes in the world can only envy.
Let’s examine ourselves: what have we heard over the radio? What have we seen on TV? What did we read in the papers?
Within a few weeks more than a hundred human beings were shot dead, and many thousands were wounded by live fire. Why?
“We were forced to fire at them because they were storming the border fence.” And indeed, did the Gazans themselves not proclaim their will to “return home” – meaning, to return to Israeli territory?
But on 14 May, “Black Monday”, 63 unarmed demonstrators were shot dead and over 1,500 wounded by live fire. Every Israeli knows that this was necessary because the demonstrators stormed the fence and were about to swarm into Israel. Nobody paid attention to the simple fact that there was not a single photo showing such an occurrence. Not even one. In spite of the fact that on both sides of the fence there were hundreds of photographers, including Israeli army photographers, who filmed every single detail. Tens of thousands stormed, and not a single picture?
The “terror” propaganda tool
One should notice the use of the word “terror”. It has turned into an adjective attached to everything. There are not just tunnels – they are all always “terror-tunnels”. There are “terror-activists”. There is “the Hamas terror-regime” and there are “terror-bases”. Now there are “terror-kites”.
Notice: not just “incendiary kites”, or “destruction-kites”, only “terror-kites”. The same every day in all media. Someone has made the terminology decision. Of course, everyone who has the word “terror” attached to his name is “a son of death”, as you say in biblical Hebrew. Another proud term of the brainwashing.
The inhabitants of the Gaza Strip are “terrorists”. (In Hebrew, a special term has been invented: mekhablim). All of them? Of course, No, no no question. Especially Hamas members. But Hamas is a political party, which has won democratic elections in all of Palestine. A civilian party which has indeed a military wing. But in our media all party members and supporters are “terrorists”, sons of death. Of course.
The use of these terms, hundreds of times every day, clearly constitute brainwashing, without the citizens noticing it. They are getting used to the fact that all Gazans are terrorists, mekhablim. This is a process of dehumanisation, the creation of Untermenschen in the Nazi lexicon. Their killing is allowed, even desirable.
There is no argument about the fact that all the demonstrations along the Gaza fence were completely non-violent. The demonstrators did not shoot one single shot, when thousands of them were wounded by live fire, and more than a hundred killed. Yet the lie passes without comment.
In such an atmosphere, even abominable sentences pass unnoticed. For example, this week I heard on one of the TV news programmes this sentence from the mouth of a military correspondent, speaking about the coming Gaza demonstration: “Iran wants dead demonstrators, and it seems that they will get them.” One has to read this sentence twice to realise what it says: that the Israeli sharpshooters serve Iranian interests.
Or a sentence that is repeated again and again, even by respected commentators: “Iran wants to destroy the state of Israel.” I don’t know what 80 million Iranians want, nor does the writer. But the sentence itself is ridiculous. Israel is a nuclear power. How does one annihilate a nuclear power (with submarines that can launch nuclear devices in the hour of need). Are the Iranians ready to turn their country – one of the cradles of human civilisation – into a graveyard and a desert?
Or a forecast “Friday another violent demonstration will take place”. “Violent”? “Another”? There is no argument about the fact that all the demonstrations along the Gaza fence were completely non-violent. The demonstrators did not shoot one single shot, when thousands of them were wounded by live fire, and more than a hundred killed. Yet the lie passes without comment.
Cogs in the lie machine
Not a single one of the hundreds of TV news programme presenters ever corrects such statements by correspondents. Because the directors, presenters, commentators and correspondents are themselves thoroughly brainwashed. The army spokesman knows the truth, of course, but he is a central cog in the brainwashing machine.
Events reached a climax with the murder of the 21-year-old female paramedic Razan Ashraf al-Najjar, when she was trying to save the life of a wounded demonstrator. The sharpshooter who shot her in the chest saw that she was a medic treating a wounded person. It was a clear war crime.
Was there a public outcry? Did the media demand an investigation? Did the media report this event in their page one headline? Did the Knesset observe a minute of silence? Nothing of the sort. A minor news item in some papers (by no means all). An excellent article by the admirable Amira Hass in Haaretz. And that’s that.
One of the hallmarks of brainwashing is a phenomenon that everyone can notice: the total absence of a second opinion.
A few days passed, and abroad there were outcries. The Argentine soccer team, with the admired Messi, cancelled a friendly game against the Israeli team in Jerusalem.
The brainwashers realised that it was impossible not to react. So, the army spokesman published a statement saying that an investigation had taken place. What did it discover? Ah, well. It was clearly established that nobody had shot Razan. She was hit by the ricochet of a bullet that had hit the ground far from her. That is such a blatant lie that even the army liar should be ashamed of producing it. It was accepted by the brainwashed public.
One of the hallmarks of brainwashing is a phenomenon that everyone can notice: the total absence of a second opinion. When a commentator voices the official line on an event, does anyone express an alternative version? Is there a debate between the official spokesman and a contrary commentator? In the democratic media, that would be commonplace. Here it is very, very rare.
What can be done to counter such brainwashing?
Not much.
Little hope
First of all: there is a vital need for a second voice. Brainwashing can be efficient only when the official voice enjoys a complete monopoly. That was one of the aims of Haolam Hazeh, the weekly which I edited for 40 years. It met every untrue government version with a contrary version. Although our voice was weak, compared to the powerful government machine (even in those days), the very fact that there are two voices, however unequal, prevents a total brainwashing. The citizen hears two versions and wonders “who is right?”
If all the peace and human rights groups in Israel set up a joint center for information, which will be heard, perhaps the monopoly of official propaganda can be broken. Perhaps.
There is in the country a tiny band of commentators who are not afraid to tell the truth, even when this is considered treason. Gideon Levy, Amira Hass and a few others. We must ensure that their voice is heard. They must be encouraged.
The power of the truth against a brainwashing machine is always limited. But in the end, even if it takes time, truth will prevail. It needs courage.
All the media must be pressured to present a variation of views on matters of war and peace, to let the “internal enemy” be heard, so that the citizen is able to form an opinion of their own.
The foreign media must be allowed free access to the sources of information, even when the foreign media are critical, “hostile” and “anti-Semitic”. Friends of Israeli-Palestinian peace abroad must be encouraged to pressure the media in their homelands to publish the truth about what is happening here.
I don’t like the word “must”. But in this context, no other will do.
The power of the truth against a brainwashing machine is always limited. But in the end, even if it takes time, truth will prevail. It needs courage.
Newspapers on sale in a shop in London, Britain, February 4, 2018. Picture: Reuters/Peter Nicholls
Less than half of UK adults say the news media is doing a good job at getting facts right, the worst rate for trustworthiness in western Europe.
The figures come from a report by US-based Pew Research Centre, which asked a total of 16,000 people across the UK, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden about their views on the media and their use of social media to get news.
Each country had roughly 2,000 respondents, surveyed between October and December last year.
Only 48 per cent of UK adults surveyed said the UK was doing a good job of “getting the facts right”, the lowest figure compared to the other seven nations surveyed, with Italy and Spain the next closest at 55 per cent.
The UK was also lowest ranked for covering the important stories of the day, with 68 per cent of UK adults saying they were doing a good job. Sweden was rated highest at 85 per cent.
The UK was rated joint second worst for investigating the actions of its Government, tying with France on 51 per cent. Only Italy was rated worse at 42 per cent.
The UK was also second worst for being politically neutral in its news coverage. Only 37 per cent of UK adults said the press in their country were doing a good job on this. Again only Italy was rated worse 36 per cent.
Of those surveyed in the UK, 31 per cent of adults who identified as left-leaning said they trusted the media, compared to 34 per cent on the political right.
The UK was also the least trusted to do a good job covering immigration (44 per cent) but was better trusted for covering the economy (65 per cent) and crime (70 per cent).
Overall in the UK, 81 per cent of people said the news media is important but just 32 per cent said they trust it – and only 5 per cent trust the news media “a lot” – above trust in Spain and Italy.
The report also found that the majority of people get their news from social media “at least sometimes” with 38 per cent doing so on a daily basis while 17 per cent also do so, but less often.
Facebook is the top social media site by far for news across Western Europe – 66 per cent of social media news consumers in the UK visit it most often for news – but the UK also has the highest number who use Twitter as their main source at 21 per cent.
In Germany, Spain and the UK, social media news consumers are less likely to trust the news media than those who don’t use social media for news.
The report said: “While long-standing public news organisations are the main source for news for most Western Europeans, newer digital pathways to news are certainly gaining exposure.
“When asked their top social media site for news, respondents name Facebook the most often, by far.
“There is also evidence that the public has a tenuous relationship with the outlets they see on social media – as many as a third of adults in Western European countries say they don’t pay attention to the sources they get news from there.”
A separate survey released today, carried out by video advertising marketplace Teads by polling 16,000 people in eight countries, found that 75 per cent of people are now more likely to seek out quality, trustworthy news site because of the rise of fake news.
Although it said 62 per cent of people actively read the news on social media, only 11 per cent trust advertising and brand content on these platforms and 28 per cent believe social media to be sensationalised. _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
A UK university has announced a new degree course combining journalism with public relations, saying it will “produce graduates who are skilled in a wide range of areas”.
From next month, the University of Salford in Greater Manchester will take on students for its new BA (Hons) Journalism with Public Relations course, based at Manchester’s Media City UK campus – also home to the BBC.
The course will be led by former Sunday People showbiz editor and publicist Debbie Manley alongside former Coronation Street press officer Sara Eyre.
Paul Broster, director of journalism, politics and contemporary history at the University of Salford, said: “The nature of journalism has changed, with those starting in the profession expected to have a wide range of digital skills alongside the ability to write well, find stories and interview.
“Our journalism programmes have always included a public relations module, but this has become increasingly popular over the years.
“Many of our journalism graduates now go on to work in public relations, while there is also a huge amount of opportunities helping large organisations raise their profile by creating powerful digital content.”
The university, which offers two undergraduate journalism courses, is also offering a new MA Public Relations and Digital Communications.
Broster added: “Both of these courses will provide students with real world experience and the tools they need to work in today’s journalism, public relations and communications industries.”
https://youtu.be/04d09LkXls0 _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com http://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
Film by Dan Cohen; music by Jackson Blumenthal: https://soundcloud.com/jacksonblument... This exclusive Grayzone investigative mini-doc by Dan Cohen exposes the cynical deceptions and faux humanitarianism behind the campaign to sell the dirty war on Syria. It will demonstrate the lengths that the US and its allies have gone to develop new ploys to tug at Western heartstrings and convince even liberal minded skeptics of war that a US intervention was necessary -- even if it meant empowering Al Qaeda's largest franchise since 9/11 and its theocratic allies among the insurgency. Big lies and little children have formed the heart of what is perhaps the most expensive, sophisticated, and shameless propaganda blitz ever conducted. Welcome to the Syria Deception.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Wed Oct 31, 2018 6:46 pm Post subject:
Paul Craig Roberts: How the American Media Was Destroyed
American media is totally unreliable. No reader can rely on any report, not even on a New York Times obituary.
Paul Craig Roberts Published 4 weeks ago on October 4, 2018 By Paul Craig Roberts 1,719 Views
http://theduran.com/paul-craig-roberts-how-the-american-media-was-dest royed/
Authored by Paul Craig Roberts:
In my September 24 column, “Truth Is Evaporating Before Our Eyes,” https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/09/24/truth-is-evaporating-befor e-our-eyes/ I used the destruction of the CBS news team that broke the Abu Ghraib story and the story of President George W. Bush’s non-performance of his Texas Air Force National Guard duties to demonstrate how accusations alone could destroy a Peabody Award winning, 26 year veteran producer of CBS News, Mary Mapes, and the established news anchor Dan Rather.
I have many times written that it was President Bill Clinton who destroyed the independent US media when he permitted 90 percent of the US media to be concentrated in six mega-corporations that were in the entertainment and other businesses and not in the news business. This unprecedented concentration of media was against all American tradition and destroyed the reliance that our Founding Fathers placed on a free press to keep government accountable to the people.
Until I read Mary Mapes book, Truth and Duty (St. Martin’s Press, 2005), I was unaware of how this monopolization of the media in violation of the Sherman Anti-trust Act and American tradition had proceeded to destroy honest reporting.
Here is what happened. The Texas Air National Guard was a place the elite placed their sons to avoid the Vietnam War draft. Copies of documents written by Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian describing George W. Bush’s ability to jump the large waiting list hoping to avoid the war, Bush’s non-compliance with National Guard requirements and Bush’s unauthorized departure to another state were given to CBS. The CBS team worked for many months to confirm or discredit the documents. The information in the documents proved to be consistent with the interviews of people acquainted with George W. Bush’s time in the Texas National Guard.
It was a carefully prepared story, not a rushed one, and it fits all the information we now have of Bush’s non-performance.
The problem for the CBS news team, which might not have been realized at the time, was that the documents were copies, not originals that experts could authenicate as real beyond question. Therefore, although the documents were consistent with the testimony of others, no expert could validate the documents as they could originals.
The Republicans seized on this chink in the armor to turn the issue away from the truthfulness of the CBS 60 Minutes report to whether or not the copies were fakes.
CBS had two other problems. One was that Viacom, its owner, was not in the news business, but in the lobbying business in Washington wanting to enrich the company with legislative perks and regulatory permissions. Truthful news from CBS, exposing US torture in the face of the Bush regime’s denials and showing that Bush was too privileged to be held accountable by the Texas National Guard, was damaging Viacom’s highly paid lobbying effort.
When the right-wing bloggers took after CBS, the Viacom executives saw how to get rid of the troublesome CBS news team. Viacom executives refused to support their reporters and convened a kangeroo count consisting of Republicans to “investigate” the 60 Minutes story of Bush’s failure to comply with his obligations to the Texas National Guard.
Viacom wanted to get rid of the independent news constraint on its lobbying success, but Mary Mapes and her lawyers thought truth meant something and would prevail. Therefore, she subjected herself to the destructive process of watching the orchestrated destruction of her career and her integrity.
CBS’ other problem was that, with or without justification, CBS and Dan Rather were regarded in conservative Republican circles as liberal, a designation equivalent to a communist. For millions of Americans the controversy was about liberal CBS trying to harm George W. Bush and leave us exposed to Muslim Terrorism. In right-wing minds, Bush was trying to protect America from Muslim terrorists who blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and CBS was trying to smear President Bush.
Mary Mapes, Dan Rather, and the CBS news team were too focused on news to take into account the dangerous situation in which they were operating. Therefore, they walked into a trap that served Dick Cheney’s Middle Eastern wars, which served Halliburton and Israel, and into a trap that served conservative hatred of “liberal” news.
Why didn’t the American media defend CBS’ careful reporting? The answer is that this was a time when TV news media was dying. The Internet was taking over. The rest of the media saw in the demise of CBS a chance to gain that market and have a longer life.
So the rest of the media took up the fake news that 60 Minutes had presented a report based on fake documents. The media did not realize that they were signing their own death warants. Neither did the right-wing bloggers that the Republicans had sicced on CBS. Today, these bloggers are themselves shut off from being able to express any truth.
Truth in America is being exterminated, and the destruction of CBS news was the starting point. As Mary Mapes reports in her book, as soon as Viacom was entirely rid of 60 Minutes with the firing of the entire staff, on the very next day Viacom held a triumphant annual investor meeting. Chairman Sumner Redstone was awarded a a $56 million paycheck for 2004. Chief operating officers, Les Moonves and Tom Freston “each pocketed a whoopping fifty-two million for the year.”
And the CBS news team went without mortgage, car, or health insurance payments.
Mapes writes: “Just a few years ago, this kind of corporate executive largesse was unherd of. Now, these media Masters of the Universe have taken over the public airwares and they have one obligation: making a profit.” Ever a larger one, which requires protecting the government and the corporate advertisers from investigative reporting.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
