Posts Tagged ‘political’

Propaganda and Journalism: A lesson for the left

July 27, 2014

W W 1 - a bloodbath justified by propaganda World War One – a bloodbath justified to the public by the kind of propaganda now being directed against Russia (source)

A few days ago I posted an article on the significant details regarding the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine, and the inconsistencies in the US / EU narrative that the government propaganda was not discussing and that mainstream media were not questioning.

The article attracted a few comments and one troll, a wannabe intellectual bully who wanted to convince me that I had no right to question the ‘official’ (i.e. American) version of events. There have been swarms of such trolls around the web, citing spurious credentials in an effort to establish that their (politically-correct, oligarchic collectivist) opinions are somehow made more valid by the fact that they question nothing that comes out of the FUKUS axis propaganda machine.

This particular troll emphasised his lack of intelligence by accusing me of believing the Russian / Ukraine separatist version of events. All I had said in fact was that there was absolutely no evidence to support President Obama’s accusation made hours after the disaster, that the government of Russia was undoubtedly responsible. He chose to interpret this as implying that I accepted the Russian version of events which blamed the Ukrainian government in Kiev for shooting down flight MH17. Bizarrely he claims he is a scientists. Not the only scientist I’ve encountered who is in need of remedial education in reading and comprehension.

I accepted no such thing. And I was proved right (as always), when the US State Department was challenged to substantiate its claims, a spokesperson referred reporters to social media chit chat.

We still don’t know who was responsible, theories that point to both separatist rebels with Russian support and Kiev government troops with US/EU support are still circulating but no conclusive evidence has been produced either way.

This devotion to partisan propaganda is not confined to the left however. On a television news analysis today the veteran journalist Max Hastings, who identifies himself as a conservative, was talking about reactions from online readers to his articles for a top selling newspaper supporting the American / European line and damning Russia.

Hastings admitted that the line he had taken was “People must believe the west, we’re the good guys, they’re the bad guys.”

He then said that a theme repeated by many commenters from around the world was; Why should we believe the Americans and British, they are proven liars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Syria, drone strikes on Pakistan and the overthrow of the elected Ukrainian government.

And that acknowledgement, plus perhaps the fact that as days count down to the hundredth anniversary of the opening shots in World War One, explains why new media and many clear thinking, honest writers in mainstream media are taking a different line. People who have read a little history are remembering how as the world stumbled into that senseless bloodbath with governments on both sides lying to their citizens and the media of the day repeating those lies:

The World According to the Mainstream Media: Russia and Palestine are Guilty until Proven Innocent
Timothy Alexander Guzman
RINF Alternative News

They accused the Russian government and the Anti-Kiev militias in East Ukraine for its direct involvement in the downing of Malaysian Airlines MH-17 without any hard evidence to support their claim. US intelligence agencies did admit that Russia was not directly linked to the Malaysian Airlines incident, but they managed to blame Russia indirectly. They claimed “that Russia was responsible for “creating the conditions” that led to the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, but they offered no evidence of direct Russian government involvement” according to ABC news.

The accusations against Russia were baseless. What is important to the families of the Malaysian Airlines tragedy is for them to find out the truth about those responsible for the crimes. Blaming actors who are not responsible for the crime will not bring peace to the families. The MSM has been actively defending Israeli actions against the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip declaring that it was Hamas that murdered the three Israeli teens, an accusation that was also never proven. Regardless of the facts on the tragic deaths of those teenagers, Israel had declared a “revenge” war on the Palestinians. The MSM is following Washington and Tel Aviv’s talking points.

The bias reporting on the situation in Gaza is shameful. The death toll surpassed 800 for the Palestinians and for the Israeli’s it’s close to 40 casualties. The US and their Western partners along with their Israeli counterparts are working in conjunction against their political adversaries through its MSM Empire. They want war and they will do anything even have their media lie to the public in order to go what they want. What had occurred in the last couple of weeks concerning events in the Ukraine and Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are both tragic incidents, but the point I am making reflects on the MSM itself and their lack of journalistic principals.

Read all the article on the loss of journalistic and academic integrity in RINF

white hat back hatWhite hats versus black hats – reality is seldom that simple (source)

Here’s another view of the Malaysia Airlines controversy authored by two people whose names alone are guaranteed to kick off an irrational two minutes hate session from the neo – fascist left, Chris. Booker and Richard North:

Could Barack Obama have prevented the MH17 disaster?

US intelligence would have known the separatists had captured missile-launchers, and where they were being used

Christopher Booker in The Daily Telegraph

The most alarming unanswered question over the shooting-down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 is so fearful to contemplate that it has scarcely even been asked. Had President Obama in fact been better placed than anyone else to prevent that disaster from taking place? When, in his statement 24 hours after the plane was downed, the President stoked speculation about the involvement of President Putin, did he deliberately obscure the fact that, days earlier, he had already learned enough from his many intelligence sources to know that the 55 international airliners travelling every day along that flight path over eastern Ukraine faced the threat of precisely such a disaster? If so, why did the US authorities not make it a top priority to ensure that such flights were immediately halted?

In all the initial confusion over what Mr Obama called “this outrage of unspeakable proportions”, there was a hysterical rush to pin the blame on Russia’s president. “Putin’s killed my son”, as one newspaper front page had it. But, over the days that followed, as ever more information emerged about this story, the US government appeared to be backtracking on its original narrative.

Read full article at The Daily Telegraph

I don’t necessarily agree with Booker but he presents information that is worth considering as we classical liberals, libertarians and freethinkers consider all aspects of the case and form our own individual opinions. The notion of presenting an argument we may not totally and utterly agree with is incomprehensible to the knee jerkers (and wrist jerkers?) of the neo – fascist left of course. They love to march in lockstep, chant the slogans, and embrace the causes along with the rest of the crowd.

BUK missile launcher - infographicBUK Missile Launcher -NB people who think mathematical modelling is involved in aiming and firing these, it’s a radar guided system, sorree.

The spectacle of the progressive left or progressive liberals exposing inner fascist as the support authoritarian governments and clamour for war is becoming a major topic for freethinkers, radicals and true liberals. In this and my other blogs I have constantly taken an anti war line, the troll referred to in the first part of this article accuses me of being a right wing extremist (I suppose the scum sucking spawn of a pox whores scablouse thinks he is insulting me – well I said he’s not very good at English,) yet over the past few years he has consistently been in favour of war and military intervention by the FUKUS axis in the domestic affairs of sovereign states. It’s supposed to be the left who are pacifists and the right who love war, yet the neo fascist left seem to be mad for war and slaughter.

Perhaps this article goes some way to explaining why liberals and left wing thinkers hold the masses is such contempt:

How did liberals become so elitist and contemptuous of the public?

liberal democrat brain
The new left brain does not collect and process information in a logical,orderly, reasonable, and objective manner. Rather, liberal thinking is dominated by an obsession with power, and use of that power to preserve and or advance elitist advantages. (source)

How did liberals become so elitist and contemptuous of the public?

Daniel Ben-Ami
Journalist and author

10 July 2014

iberalism is one of a select band of troublesome political concepts that has multiple meanings. Indeed, ‘liberalism’ as used in one context can be the opposite of what it means in another.

The attitude of liberalism to freedom provides a prime example of these contradictory meanings. Classical liberalism, which was to the fore in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, typically placed a heavy emphasis on the importance of individual autonomy and liberty. In sharp contrast, contemporary liberalism tends to be deeply intolerant and elitist.

Fred Siegel, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank based in New York, has provided an enormous service with his innovative history of modern American liberalism, The Revolt Against the Masses. It helps put many of the most retrograde trends in the US into their proper context. It also helps shed light on parallel developments in other countries, including Britain, even though they are outside Siegel’s remit.

For Siegel, a defining feature of modern liberalism is its attachment to what he calls the clerisy – a technocratic elite which he identifies with academia, Hollywood, the prestige press, Silicon Valley and Wall Street. Despite its professed attachment to equality of opportunity, this elite holds the mass of the American public, what Siegel refers to as ‘the middle class’, in contempt. The clerisy sees itself as superior to the rest of the population on meritocratic grounds.

As the reach of the state has burgeoned, the clerisy has taken on an increasingly important social role. Over the years, American government has grown vastly, commanding more resources and employing more people, than ever before. As Joel Kotkin, one of the sharpest observers of contemporary American politics, has pointed out: ‘Since 1990, the number of government workers has expanded by some five million to some 20million. That’s four times the number who were employed by the government at the end of the Second World War, a growth rate roughly twice that of the population as a whole.’ Members of the technocratic elite present themselves as impartial experts, but their interests are closely tied to the fortunes of this vast state apparatus.

Read full article at Spiked

So there you are. Once you stop yourself being caught up in the medieval witch hunt tactics of the ‘left’, take a step back and view the bigger picture and start thinking for yourself, a very different picture emerges to the one painted by our hysterical leftie trolls as they clamour for the global war their bankster sponsors want for purposes of increasing their control, grabbing even more money and reducing the global population. Now are you still prepared to believe these facists because they tell you they are the cuddly side of the argument.

How To Destabilize A Nation

March 5, 2014

orange revolution ukraine
The Orange Revolution 2004 – 5 (Ukraine get’s Tangoed)

Remember the last revolution in Ukraine, it hapened a few years ago, was called the colour revolution and there was a lot of orange involved but no bowler hats or liliburlero.

With the recent destabilization having taken place inside Ukraine and the ongoing destabilization of Venezuela currently playing out in South America, it’s time to step back from the emotions (especially people on the left of the political spectru8m whose knee jerk reaction is always to assume those trying to overthrow the legitimate government are the good guys even if they are human organ noshing Syrian religious fanatics or neo Fascist Ukrainian gangsters, and look in an objective way at the bigger picture. The first thing to stike us ought to be the manner in which the destinies of seemingly independent nations are controlled by a world oligarchy, for example have you noticed how the rebels (insurgents as the media insist on calling them though they are usually natives of the country they are trying to take over and so aren’t surging in from anywhere) always seem to be a rag bag of political factions, tribal minorities and and religious extremists? There are no coherent rebel groups with a set of demands, a manifesto or even an ideology.

The traditional methods of regime change consist of balkanization (see above), and the weakening of nation-states for political and/or geopolitical purposes. These however are too lengthy and uncertain for the New World Order whose global kleptocracy agenda is nothing to do with nation building and everything to do with enslavement through debt.

This reduces the options for destabilization somewhat. The open war method favoured by the Bush administration 2000 – 2008 in the USA is costly, usually a PR disaster and relies on opponents being gangsters, dupes, fanatics, warlords, suicide jockeys or followers of a criminally insane messianic cult leader . Such people can easily be provoked into committing atrocities that justify a regime chnage campaign.

The Brzezinski method, named for bill Clinton’s hit man Zbigniew Brzezinski. This is favoured by Liberal Fascists like the Clinton Andministration and Tony Blair’s New Labour. The technique is to shaft the economy of the target nation, cause as much social stress as possible, undermine the government, and in some cases allow the gangsters, dupes, fanatics, warlords, suicide jockeys or followers of a criminally insane messianic cult leader to directly seize power and set about a genocide. Then it is possible for the caring, sharing, Kumbaya singing liberal do gooders to declare they are launching a humanitarian mission before starting to bomb and shell the crap out of some third world failed state.

Lastly, there is the strategy of the “color revolution” modelled on the 2004 – 2005 unrest in Ukraine in which, after an unpopular election result, people took to the streets en masse, wearing orange armbands or waving orange flags. Though largely nonviolent in terms of destruction of life or property and is often made up of the genuinely disillusioned the movement is directed by the most disingenuous agents of powerful interests, the banking cartel. The aim is to make sure the new regime takes over a ruined economy so it will need a massive injection of cash loans which will be secured with bonds. And thus the nation is enslaved until the next revolution.

Color revolutions have been more successful in the Baltic states and Eastern Europe than in the Middle East where human organ noshers and mad mullahs tent to intimidate the flag wavers it is important to understand, that the NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations), Foundations, and “Human Rights” organizations are always active in the countries where revolution happens, acting as political advisers, educators, trainers, development officers, and community organizers.

So we see that the global terrorist organisation is not Al Qaeda but the United Nations.

RELATED POSTS:
World On The Brink – USA And Russia Square Up In Ukraine
Former US Presidential nomination runner Dennis Kucinich says US instigated Ukraine Crisis

Landmark climate change report leaked online

December 14, 2012

Landmark climate change report leaked online

Draft of IPCC’s fifth assessment, due to be published in September 2013, leaked online by climate sceptic Alex Rawls. It’s a safe bet that the content differs widely from what will eventually be published by mainstream media.

Thhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/ipcc-climate-change-report-leaked-onlinee draft of a major global warming report by the UN’s climate science panel has been leaked online.

The fifth assessment report (AR5) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is not due to be published in full until September 2013, was uploaded onto a website called Stop Green Suicide on Thursday and has since been mirrored elsewhere on the internet.

The IPCC, which confirmed the draft is genuine, said in a statement: “The IPCC regrets this unauthorized posting which interferes with the process of assessment and review. We will continue not to comment on the contents of draft reports, as they are works in progress.”

A little-known US-based climate sceptic called Alex Rawls, who had been accepted by the IPCC to be one of the report’s 800 expert reviewers, admitted to leaking the document. In a statement posted online, he sought to justify the leak: “The addition of one single sentence [discussing the influence of cosmic rays on the earth’s climate] demands the release of the whole. That sentence is an astounding bit of honesty, a killing admission that completely undercuts the main premise and the main conclusion of the full report, revealing the fundamental dishonesty of the whole.”

Climate sceptics have heralded the sentence – which they interpret as meaning that cosmic rays could have a greater warming influence on the planet than mankind’s emissions – as “game-changing”.

The isolation by climate sceptics of one sentence in the 14-chapter draft report was described as “completely ridiculous” by one of the report’s lead authors. Prof Steve Sherwood, a director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, told ABC Radio in Australia: “You could go and read those paragraphs yourself and the summary of it and see that we conclude exactly the opposite, that this cosmic ray effect that the paragraph is discussing appears to be negligible … It’s a pretty severe case of [cherry-picking], because even the sentence doesn’t say what [climate sceptics] say and certainly if you look at the context, we’re really saying the opposite.”

The leaked draft “summary for policymakers” contains a statement that appears to contradict the climate sceptics’ interpretation.

It says: “There is consistent evidence from observations of a net energy uptake of the earth system due to an imbalance in the energy budget. It is virtually certain that this is caused by human activities, primarily by the increase in CO2 concentrations. There is very high confidence that natural forcing contributes only a small fraction to this imbalance.”

By “virtually certain”, the scientists say they mean they are now 99% sure that man’s emissions are responsible. By comparison, in the IPCC’s last report, published in 2007, the scientists said they had a “very high confidence” – 90% sure – humans were principally responsible for causing the planet to warm.

Richard Betts, a climate scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre and an AR5 lead author, tweeted that the report is still a draft and could well change: “Worth pointing out that the wording in the leaked IPCC WG1 [working group 1, which examines the “physical science basis” of climate change] draft chapters may still change in the final versions, following review comments.”

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science, said that Rawls appeared to have broken the confidentiality agreement signed by reviewers: “As a registered reviewer of the IPCC report, I condemn the decision by a climate change sceptic to violate the confidentiality of the review process. The review of the IPCC report is being carried out in line with the principles of peer review which operate throughout academic science, including an expectation of high standards of ethical behaviour by reviewers. It is disappointing, if not surprising, that climate change sceptics have been unable to meet these high standards of ethical behaviour.”

The IPCC, which publishes a detailed synthesis of the latest climate science every seven years to help guide policy makers, has experienced leaks before. In 2000, the third assessment report was leaked to the New York Times, while the fourth assessment report was published in 2006 by the US government a year ahead of its official publication.

Prof Bill McGuire, Professor of Geophysical & Climate Hazards at University College London and contributing author on the recent IPCC report on climate change and extreme events, said that sceptics’ reading of the draft was incorrect: “Alex Rawls’ interpretation of what IPCC5 says is quite simply wrong. In fact, while temperatures have been ramping up in recent decades, solar activity has been pretty subdued, so any interaction with cosmic rays is clearly having minimal – if any – effects. IPCC AR5 reiterates what we can be absolutely certain of: that contemporary climate change is not a natural process, but the consequence of human activities.”

Prof Piers Forster, Professor of Climate Change at the University of Leeds, said: “Although this may seem like a ‘leak’, the draft IPCC reports are not kept secret and the review process is open. The rationale in not disseminating the findings until the final version is complete, is to try and iron out all the errors and inconsistencies which might be inadvertently included. Personally, I would be happy if the whole IPCC process were even more open and public, and I think we as scientists need to explore how we can best match the development of measured critical arguments with those of the Twitter generation.”

What we may note from the above is how dishonest those who ride the climate change gravy train are prepared to be in defence of the fake science that gives them luxurious lifestyles. Firstly the accusation that Rawls has misinterpreted the report. This really is just the old argument from authority trick, saying in effect, “He’s not a scientists so he cant understand the science. Really however the language is fairly straightforward, it says what it says and there is only so much room for interpretation.

Then there is the claim that ‘temperatures have been ramping up l.ately’. This is a blatant lie, while the ‘adjusted data’ shows eash succeeding year is the ‘hottest on record’ (although even that depends on whose records you look at) raw data shows 1998 was the hottest in the modern era and surface temperatures have not warmed significantly since.

It is possible to go on and on providing hundreds of items of evidence that show climate change (which is a constant and natural process) is not being caused by human activity, but there’s no point. The believers will go on praying to their science God for some Sodom and Gomorrah style even to punish the faithless, the sane will go on living their lives safe in the knowledge that no global catastrophes are imminent and the ruling elites will go on exploiting scaremongering propaganada to justify punitive taxes on energy and other essentials.