Sinds het einde van Koude Oorlog is het Westen niet zo vol van onzekerheden geweest.
Dat heeft gevolgen voor de strijdbaarheid van de massa’s. Behalve als het om het jihadisme gaat is onze publieke opinie zelden zo afkerig van oorlog geweest… Sinds 1989, de val van de Berlijnse Muur en het feitelijke einde van de Koude Oorlog, heeft het Westen een radicale gedaanteverwisseling ondergaan. Er is een publieke afkeer van de buitenlandse politiek gegroeid, en wat daar onverbrekelijk bij hoort: de uitoefening van macht.
Henk Hofland. Machtsstrijd. 4 maart 2015
Zowel in West-Europa als in Amerika zijn bij een zeer groot deel van het publiek de vaderlandslievende eerzucht en de strijdlust verloren gegaan.
Henk Hofland. Mondiale krachtmeting. 12 maart 2014
De bezetting van de Krim en de militaire ingreep in Kiev zijn pure oorlogsdaden, daarover kan geen misverstand bestaan… Is het eerste schot gelost, dan is er een nieuw hoofdstuk begonnen: dat van de wederzijdse vernietiging.
Henk Hofland. Escalatie in de Duisternis. 5 maart 2014
Een indirect resultaat van de voortdurende crisis in het Midden-Oosten is dat in West-Europa een populistisch alarmisme wortel heeft geschoten. Het zaait angst, maar het heeft geen uitvoerbare oplossing. Die ligt in het Midden-Oosten, in de landen die voor het vredestichtende Westen onbereikbaar zijn geworden, zoals de praktijk heeft bewezen.
Henk Hofland. Het machteloze Westen. 17 juli 2013
Al jarenlang maakt de bekendste Nederlandse opiniemaker H.J.A. Hofland zich in De Groene Amsterdammer ernstige zorgen over het verlies 'bij een zeer groot deel van het publiek' in het Westen van wat hij in vooroorlogs jargon 'vaderlandslievende eerzucht en de strijdlust' noemt. Zoals bekend zijn koloniale oorlogen altijd geprezen als tekenen van vaderlandschen 'eerzucht en strijdlust.' Maar aangezien in moderne oorlogen de meeste slachtoffers de eigen ongewapende burgers zijn, is de 'strijdbaarheid van de massa’s' en het enthousiasme voor massamoord en totale vernietiging aanzienlijk afgenomen. Sinds 'we' via de televisie kunnen zien wat voor een massale bloedbaden al die 'vaderlandslievende eerzucht' oplevert, is er 'een populistisch alarmisme' ontstaan dat de 'beste journalist van de twintigste eeuw,' die als jongeling Auschwitz en Hiroshima meemaakte, niet lekker zit. En de reden is duidelijk: zonder 'cannon-fodder,' een term die voor het eerst in 1891 werd gebruikt, en een 'vaderlandslievende' opoffering van het thuisfront kan ‘oorlog' niet langer meer 'de voortzetting' zijn 'van de politiek met andere middelen,’ en moet Hofland zich in De Groene van 29 januari 2010 angstig afvragen of 'die wijsheid nog van toepassing [is]?' Vijf jaar later gaf de nestor van de polderpers zelf als antwoord hierop dat 'Er een publieke afkeer van de buitenlandse politiek [is] gegroeid, en wat daar onverbrekelijk bij hoort: de uitoefening van macht.'
Kortom, in het nucleaire tijdperk blijft hij aanhanger van de leer van de negentiende eeuwse Duitse generaal Von Clausewitz dat als een machtig land zijn zin niet krijgt het er dan op los moet meppen. Het is de logica van de straat, vandaag de dag gepropageerd door het neoconservatieve tuig in vooraanstaande posities, daarbij gesteund door de 'vrije pers.' Inderdaad, 'we' hebben hier te maken met een levensgevaarlijke 87-jarige dwaas die zonder enige persoonlijke consequenties zijn extreem-rechtse propaganda wekelijks kan verspreiden in het tijdschrift van de al even dwaze 'politiek-literaire elite' in de polder. Wiens belangen verdedigt Hofland? In elk geval niet die van de burgerbevolking die op alle niveau's de dupe van massaal geweld wordt, maar die van de financiële elite, door de geschiedenis heen de enigen die aan oorlog verdienen. Haar belangen moeten worden verdedigd dan wel uitgebreid om een neoliberaal systeem in stand te houden, waarbij 85 miljardairs momenteel evenveel bezitten als de helft van de mensheid tezamen. 'The war,' zo stelde George Orwell vast,
is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or East Asia, but to keep the very structure of society intact.
Met andere woorden: degene die dit systeem in stand houdt, door er propaganda voor te maken, gedraagt zich als een misdadiger, die al dan niet met achterhaalde begrippen als 'vaderlandsliefde, eerzucht' en 'strijdlust' tracht zichzelf te portretteren als een nobel mens. Het uitroeien van grote groepen burgers met geavanceerde wapens is geen teken van 'eerzucht,' maar van genocidale criminaliteit. Het vanaf veilige afstand bombarderen van burgers met fragmentatiebommen is geen teken van 'strijdlust,' maar van moordzucht. Het vernederen, opsluiten, op de vlucht drijven van vrouwen, kinderen en bejaarden is geen teken van 'vaderlandsliefde,' maar van wreedheid en onverschilligheid. Het zich kunnen verplaatsen in het lot van de ander is geen teken van 'populistisch alarmisme,' maar van menselijkheid. Degene die deze empathie niet kent, is een pathologisch geval, gedraagt zich als een sociopaat of psychopaat.
Wanneer Henk Hofland stelt dat 'Er een publieke afkeer van de buitenlandse politiek [is] gegroeid, en wat daar onverbrekelijk bij hoort: de uitoefening van macht,' dan is dit een symptoom van een stoornis. Allereerst de formulering: er is volstrekt geen 'publieke afkeer van de buitenlandse politiek gegroeid,' maar een normale weerzin tegen oorlogen en hun gruwelijke bloedbaden en tegen de mogelijkheid van wat Hofland zelf 'wederzijdse vernietiging' noemt. Hoe abnormaal de opiniemaker van De Groene reageert, blijkt ondermeer uit het feit dat er volgens hem sprake is van 'een populistisch alarmisme,' terwijl hij acht maanden later met evenveel stelligheid erop wijzen dat zodra 'het eerste schot [is] gelost, dan is er een nieuw hoofdstuk begonnen: dat van de wederzijdse vernietiging,' om tenslotte precies een jaar later in hetzelfde weekblad weer te beweren dat 'Er een publieke afkeer van de buitenlandse politiek [is] gegroeid, en wat daar onverbrekelijk bij hoort: de uitoefening van macht.'
Kort samengevat, omdat er een verwerpelijk défaitisme onder het volk in Europa en de VS is ontstaan, is het westers militair-industrieel complex niet meer in staat om oorlogen te voeren, die sinds 2001 een bloedige chaos hebben veroorzaakt in Afghanistan, Irak, Libië, en Syrië. Daarentegen is, in Hoflands visie, het geweldloze referendum waarbij de bevolking van 'de Krim' zich uitsprak voor aansluiting bij de Russische federatie een schoolvoorbeeld van 'pure oorlogsmisdaden, daarover kan geen misverstand bestaan.'
Propaganda werkt alleen zolang de burger niet weet dat het propaganda is, zodra hij dit wel weet is het geen propaganda meer, maar dat wat het altijd al was: een leugen. En godzijdank weet 'een zeer groot deel van het publiek' inmiddels dat de westerse mainstream-journalisten propaganda bedrijven. Voor wie schrijft Hofland dan? Het antwoord: voor zijn peergroup, de 'politiek-literaire elite' en haar opdrachtgevers, de financiële en economische macht en de daarvan afhankelijke 'democratische' politici. Voor hen allen geldt dat 'Sinds het einde van Koude Oorlog het Westen niet zo vol van onzekerheden [is] geweest.' En hoe onzekerder de 'elite' is, hoe angstiger zij wordt voor de gevolgen van de almaar afnemende 'strijdbaarheid van de massa’s.' Het 'publiek' is in toenemende mate zeker van één ding: de bevolking wil absoluut geen desastreuze oorlogen meer om alleen de belangen van de 'elite' te dienen. In pl;aast van dit te betreuren zou het moeten worden toegejuicht. Nu de 'vrije pers' het monopolie op de berichtgeving heeft verloren door de komst van internet, kan iedere westerling zich door meerdere bronnen laten informeren, zonder de tussenkomst van de mainstream-journalisten, en is daardoor de 'vaderlandse eerzucht' en de maniakale 'strijdlust' drastisch verminderd, zeer tot het ongenoegen van ondermeer Henk Hofland. Hoewel hijzelf in zijn NRC-column De risico's van de openbaarheid op 1 december 2010 moest constateren dat
Hoe langer hoe meer zijn dag- en weekbladen zich gaan bezighouden met minder moeilijke zaken, entertainment, roddel, sport, in plaats van het ‘hinderlijk volgen’ van de gezagsdragers. Daarbij is het principe dat die mensen nu eenmaal nooit te vertrouwen zijn. De gedrukte pers, in het gedrang geraakt door de nieuwe media, heeft een lange periode van opleuking achter de rug. Maar het publieke wantrouwen is gebleven, misschien zelfs gegroeid. Stel je voor dat we acht jaar geleden een WikiLeaks hadden gehad, terwijl met leugens en vergissingen de aanval op Irak werd voorbereid (en onze medeplichtigheid daaraan). Had de wereldgeschiedenis dan een andere wending genomen?,
voegde hij hier onmiddellijk aan toe dat:
het grote publiek minder dan ooit geneigd [is] om de gezagsdragers op hun woord te geloven. De nieuwe, geëmancipeerde internetgebruiker is ervan overtuigd dat hij, ongeacht zijn kennis van zaken, in staat is om zijn eigen conclusies te trekken. En dan komt WikiLeaks met een overstelpende hoeveelheid onthullingen en daarna nog zo’n stortvloed. Valt zo’n chaos van feiten nog te beoordelen, kan er een steekhoudend oordeel over de verantwoordelijken worden uitgesproken? Bestuurders voelen zich in het nauw gedreven, aan de ene kant doordat het onvermijdelijke internet ook een middel tot voorbarige openbaarheid kan zijn, aan de andere kant doordat ze daarmee worden uitgeleverd aan het onmiddellijke oordeel van de dan plotseling goedgelovige massa. De verborgen zwakte van internet is dat het oorzaak kan zijn van een laaiende volkswoede. Hoe dat in zijn werk zou gaan, weten we nog niet. Het risico is er.
Met andere woorden: volgens de veel geprezen opiniemaker draagt de 'openbaarheid' van internet een groot gevaar in zich, aangezien autoriteiten 'zich in het nauw gedreven [voelen]' door 'voorbarige' onthullingen over de corrupte politiek. Door bijvoorbeeld WikiLeaks, worden de volksvertegenwoordigers 'uitgeleverd aan het onmiddellijke oordeel van de dan plotseling goedgelovige massa.' Wie behoort nu eigenlijk tot die 'goedgelovige massa'? Voorafgaand aan de westerse invasie in Irak demonstreerde wereldwijd diezelfde 'goedgelovige massa' om te protesteren tegen deze grove schending van het internationaal recht en de onvermijdelijke bloedbaden en andere oorlogsmisdaden die daaruit zouden voortvloeien. Tegelijkertijd waren de westerse mainstream-media druk doende, zoals Hofland zelf gedwongen was vast te stellen, 'met leugens en vergissingen de aanval op Irak' aan het voorbereiden. Om als het ware zijn eigen absurditeit nog eens te benadrukken, beweerde dezelfde all-round opiniefabrikant, ditmaal in De Groene Amsterdammer van 20 maart 2009, dat
Een natie niet zonder een politiek-literaire elite [kan], zoals ze ook niet kan zonder een medische elite, een juridische elite of een elite van ingenieurs,'
en dat
Redacties van de serieuze media instituten [zijn] waar honderden specialisten werken. Met onverbiddelijke regelmaat leveren ze het product op basis waarvan de burgerij tot een gefundeerd politiek oordeel komt.
Wanneer internet het publiek informeert dan is er dus sprake van een 'plotseling goedgelovige massa,' en kan 'internet' de 'oorzaak zijn van een laaiende volkswoede.' Wanneer daarentegen de mainstream-media met 'leugens en vergissingen de aanval op Irak' legitimeren dan wordt de 'burgerij' in staat gesteld met 'onverbiddelijke regelmaat' tot 'een gefundeerd politiek oordeel' te komen. 'Hoe dat in zijn werk' gaat 'weten we' uit ervaring maar al te goed. De macht indoctrineert de opiniemakers net zolang tot ze braaf de officiële versie van de werkelijkheid doorgeven. Ik heb dit proces decennialang van nabij mogen aanschouwen. Niet voor niets kregen fervente Atlantici als Volkskrant-opiniemaker Paul Brill en NRC-opiniemaker Hubert Smeets in 2012 een 'studiereis' naar de VS aangeboden, georganiseerd door de Atlantische Commissie, bekend vanwege zijn NAVO-propaganda. Snoepreisjes en andere beloningen, inclusief 'prestigieuze' prijzen, maken de 'vrije pers' verrassend plooibaar. Maar ook al verspreiden mainstream-journalisten geen leugens, dan nog maken ze zich regelmatig schuldig aan een 'conspiracy of silence' door essentiële informatie te verzwijgen. Om nog een schijn van geloofwaardigheid te claimen probeert Henk Hofland internet in een kwaad daglicht te stellen door te beweren dat de 'verborgen zwakte van internet is dat het oorzaak kan zijn van een laaiende volkswoede.' Internet is in zijn ogen de 'oorzaak' van de 'volkswoede,' en dus niet 'onze medeplichtigheid' aan het klakkeloos verspreiden van 'leugens en vergissingen' waardoor 'de aanval op Irak werd voorbereid' met 'onze medeplichtigheid daaraan,' waardoor voor Hofland zelf de volgende retorische vraag gerechtvaardigd was: 'Had de wereldgeschiedenis dan een andere wending genomen?'
Kunt u het gebrek aan enige logica nog volgen? En toch schuilt er een verklaring achter Hoflands waanzin, en die is simpelweg gesteld: als het systeem stagneert dient het een bedreiging van buitenaf te verzinnen om daarmee de aandacht van het publiek en van de interne onoplosbare problemen af te leiden. De commerciële massamedia zijn in bezit van de elite en weerspiegelen dan ook de belangen van de elite, mijn mainstream collega's kunnen in hun meningen gradueel van elkaar verschillen, maar nooit essentieel. In The Cancer Stage of Capitalism (2013) signaleert de Britse emeritus hoogleraar John McMurtry hoe blind de kapitalistische media, politici en zelfs managers zijn voor de desastreuze gevolgen van het neoliberalisme:
The fatal consequences were unanticipated. They were mere 'externalities' to the private money-sequence and commodity value code and circuits still running and multiplying on automatic pilot as 'more freedom and democracy.' Freedom and democracy come to mean what the system requires. The private transnational money-sequence over nations had, however, been envisaged by planners in more precise terms,
en aan de man gebracht met begrippen als 'a new world order.' Zo gebruikten
During the 20th century, many politicians, such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill, used the term 'new world order' to refer to a new period of history characterized by a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power after World War I and World War II. They all saw the period as an opportunity to implement idealistic proposals for global governance in the sense of new collective efforts to address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve, while always respecting the right of nations to self-determination. These proposals led to the creation of international organizations (such as the UN and NATO), and international regimes (such as the Bretton Woods system and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which were calculated both to maintain a balance of power in favor of the United States and to regularize cooperation between nations, in order to achieve a peaceful phase of capitalism.
Dat de zelfbeschikking, democratie en de mensenrechten evenwel geen enkele rol van betekenis spelen, bleek al in het begin van de jaren vijftig toen de VS, net als voorheen de voormalige koloniale mogendheden, de hegemonie opeiste en elke democratische of nationalistische regering die de Amerikaanse economische belangen in de weg zaten, ten val werden gebracht, van Iran tot Vietnam, van Congo tot Guatemala en Chili, om slechts vijf voorbeelden te geven. Hoe dan ook, in 1990 beschreef
during a joint session of the US Congress, President George H. W. Bush his objectives for post-Cold War global governance in cooperation with post-Soviet states. He stated:
Until now, the world we've known has been a world divided — a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict and cold war. Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a 'world order' in which 'the principles of justice and fair play... protect the weak against the strong…' A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.
Maar opnieuw bleek al spoedig dat president Bush senior's inspirerende betoog niet meer was dan een pakket mooie woorden, en probeerde ondermeer zijn zoon met uiterst gewelddadige interventies zijn hegemonie veilig te stellen. Grondstoffen en markten zijn door de hele geschiedenis heen veel belangrijkere motieven voor naties geweest dan altruïsme. Bovendien kan het neoliberale kapitalisme eenvoudigweg niet zonder groei, het zou anders in korte tijd volledig ineenstorten. John McMurtry constateert derhalve dat:
While tirelessly proclaimed as a global liberation from the state with eager press and academic collaboration, the plan was in fact imposed one-way by supranational treaties in vast all-or-nothing tranches of 'investor' rights undebated by legislatures and according all rights only to transnational corporations. In these semi-secret bureaucratic rule monoliths of endless corporate legalese (juridisch jargon. svh) that almost no-one has read, the inner logic is not discerned. Workers have no rights, nor do citizens, nor do environments, nor do democratic legislatures themselves. All disappear from sight in these monumental transnational treaty edicts with only protection of the rights of supranational 'investors' protected. Their rights are spelled out in every detail in binding international law which had been long claimed in all covenants and treaties by law which protect life — a much older, developed and internationally participatory body of law including international covenants against war crimes and crimes against humanity and the civil International Covenant of Economic, Political and Cultural Rights which were all ignored. It is in this detailed and sweeping enforcement of private transnational money-sequence rights alone and exclusion of all evolved life-protective rights and law that we may detect the carcinogenic code in unseen mutating action.
Het parasitaire neoliberalisme met zijn permanente staat van oorlog met mens en natuur is vandaag de dag gecodificeerd, ten koste van de overgrote meerderheid van de wereldbevolking. De Amerikaanse onafhankelijke senator Bernie Sanders merkte in dit verband op:
One family in this country--the Walton family, the owners of Walmart--are now worth as a family $148 billion. This is more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of American society. Today the richest 400 Americans own more wealth than the bottom half of America, 150 million people. This is distribution of wealth--what we own… The top 25 hedge fund managers made last year over $24 billion. This is enough to pay the salaries of more than 425,000 public schoolteachers. Over the past decade, the net worth of the top 400 billionaires in this country has doubled by an astronomical $1 trillion in the last 10 years.
Terwijl de kloof tussen arm en rijk wereldwijd blijft toenemen, werd in 2014 bovendien bekend dat:
For the second year in a row, America’s richest 14 individuals made morefrom their annual investments than the $80 billion provided for people in need of food. Nearly half of the food-deprived are children. Perversely, the food stamp program was CUT because of a lack of federal funding.
In a testament to the inability — or unwillingness — of Congress to do anything about the incessant upward re-distribution of America’s wealth, the richest 14 Americans increased their wealth from $507 billion to $589 billion in ONE YEAR from their investment earnings. As stated by Forbes, 'All together the 400 wealthiest Americans are worth a staggering $2.29 trillion, up $270 billion from a year ago.'
The Richest 14 Made Enough Money to Hire Two Million Pre-School Teachers or Emergency Medical Technicians
Billions of dollars of wealth, derived from years of American productivity, have been transferred to a few financially savvy and well-connected individuals who have spent a generation shaping trading rules and tax laws to their own advantage. It’s so inexplicably one-sided that the 2013 investment earnings of the richest 1% of Americans ($1.8 trillion) was more than the entire budget for Social Security ($860 billion), Medicare ($524 billion), and Medicaid ($304 billion).
.jpg){kind=spacer}
Suppressing Key Facts, How the American Public Is Deceived by the “News”
Top ‘News’ Executives Suppress Key Facts; The Public Sees a Chaotic, Disjointed, Picture. Here Is How that Is Done, in Personal Detail.
If the public is systematically lied-to by the Government and by a virtually uniformly cooperative press suppressing key facts in order to pump that lie, such as was the case during 2002 and 2003 in the lead-up to America’s invasion of Iraq, then there can’t possibly be an authentic democracy, because democracy is founded upon a truthfully informed public, and so any ‘news’ institution that violates its solemn public trust of reporting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, is traitorous to democracy itself.
That’s why the press has been called “the fourth estate” of government. The first three “estates” are the aristocracy, the clergy, and the public. If the press represent not the public, but instead one of the two other classes — the aristocracy and/or the clergy — then what exists is a dictatorship by that actually ruling class against the public, not a democracy by the public. The public cannot rule in such a country. They instead are manipulated in it.
They may be manipulated to believe that they rule, but it’s only a manipulated illusion then; it’s not real; it’s a fraud, of the most massive type. Such a country cannot possibly be a real democracy; it’s a fraudulent ‘democracy.’
Evidence will be presented here that democracy no longer exists in the United States. Part of this evidence is personal, something that I always prefer to avoid, but which happens to be integral to this particular news-report and analysis. So: it’s necessary, in this case.
Already, a scientific analysis of a massive database has found that the United States is not a democracy but only a fake-democracy, actually an “oligarchy,” more-traditionally called an “aristocracy” (as I shall be calling it in this article); and the personal story narrated here will help to explain how and why this is the way our country actually functions.
Here is the broader framework in the United States, as it operates today: The aristocracy know that the way to control the public is via the ‘news’ media; and they create, buy, and build, all of the ‘news’ media that are of any substantial size or influence. It’s the cheapest way for the aristocracy to control the government; and, besides, any aristocrat who owns a controlling interest in one ‘news’ medium can then sell to his fellow-aristocrats favorable ‘news’ coverage of his own companies and/or of the governmental policies that they seek.
For example, if, say, The New York Times slants a report in favor of a certain change in the law, which will help one of its advertisers, then that advertiser won’t merely be buying with his ad-dollars increased sales of his own products and services; he’ll also be buying increased public support for that change in the law, favoring his company in a way that will increase his profit-margin, even if sales do not increase. Consequently, control over the ‘news’ media is basically an “I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine” business among aristocrats: it’s not really about journalism; it is instead about selling — and, what it is mainly selling is influence. That’s influence over government, and not only influence over the sale of private products and services.
This is the way that the system actually works. Any reader who refuses to consider the possibility that this is so, should stop reading here, because what I’ll be documenting from my own experience fits into that framework, and definitely does not fit into the framework, which I have found to be mythological, of the influential ‘news’ media being authentic journalistic institutions — truth-driven, instead ofpublic-manipulation-driven.
That, for example, is the reason why not only all of America’s major ‘news’ media, but even all of its major ‘alternative news’ media, refuse to report that the U.S. Government carried out a very bloody coup d’etat in Kiev Ukraine in February 2014 under the cover of ‘democracy demonstrations,’ and that our Government has ever since that time been carrying out (via its imposed new rabidly anti-Russian Ukrainian regime) an ethnic-cleansing campaign, which they call an ‘Anti Terrorist Operation’ or ‘ATO,’ in order to exterminate and/or terrorize to expell from Ukraine the residents in the particular area of Ukraine that had voted 90% for the man whom Obama overthrew, Viktor Yanukovych. The people slaughtered there are not ‘terrorists’ but victims of a government by terror. This government routinely uses firebombs in order to slaughter the residents there. The extermination is the goal, not an unfortunate side-effect of policy.
This has, in fact, been the first time in American history when the U.S. Government has actually installed a racist-fascist, or nazi, government (one the likes of which we actually fought against in World War II), and has (along with the cooperating aristocracies in Europe) imposed an ethnic-cleansing campaign, a war to exterminate the residents in a region. And we’re doing it in Europe, in Ukraine, on Russia’s border. The U.S. aristocracy are so heavily invested, for such a long time, in overthrowing Russia’s Government, so that Ukraine is now being used by them as the proxy-state to do it. Killing, or driving into Russia, those strongly pro-Russian residents, is necessary in order for future national elections in Ukraine to retain in power the new, rabidly anti-Russian, Government, a Government that wants to join NATO and to place nuclear missiles against Russia, at Russia’s border, a veritable nuclear checkmate, more devastating for Russia even than the dozen currently existing formerly Russia-allied nations that now belong to the anti-Russian U.S. military alliance, NATO. Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, has every reason to consider the United States now to be a deadly hostile nation, because America’s aristocrats are deadly serious in this genocidal anti-Russian gambit, which is a preliminary step to destroy Russians.
I have been writing articles about this matter for about a year, and all of them can be seen at the following two sites, besides a few other sites that have run some of them; so, these articles, listed at the following two links, fill in the details on this:
With that as background, then, here is the narrative I experienced:
I had sent the following news-report to virtually all of the U.S. and UK national news-media:
That report is news because no one has ever reported it before, and because it is fact, not mere opinion. A lie is a lie; it is not an ‘error,’ and it is not a ‘truth’; and the allegations on which those sanctions are based are not only false but are known to be false by our Government, which alleges them. To state that a lie is a lie is either true or false. That news-report provides its own documentation, through links to its sources. The reader can judge its accuracy at least as well as when a journalist cites some ‘expert’ (or government-source) as an ‘authority’ on what is true and what is false. Often, propagandistic ‘journalists’ pre-select ‘experts’ whose opinions just happen to agree with the ‘facts’ that the given journalist’s employer wants to sell as ‘reality.’
This news-article I was submitting to virtually all national U.S. news-media, is different from such propaganda, which is widely published; it’s a news-story, and it is an important one. The very title of the news-report asserts a startling allegation; if it is true, then the consequences are enormous. Whether it is well-written and well-documented, is only for each individual reader to judge. I would hope that each reader would judge it on the basis of the quality of the evidence that it cites and links to. However, the executives at news organizations are gate-keepers; they filter what news-reports you see, and which ones you don’t. And, like all of my news-reports on Ukraine, this one was published only by very few.
It was, in fact, published only by the following
All others (all the rest of the national ‘news’ media) declined to publish it.
The news-story reported there is important because massive economic harm is being done both to Russia and to Europe by these sanctions — and by the lies that are the basis for these economic sanctions; and also because any such lies by the United States Government against Russia might end up producing a disastrous nuclear war. This is why the public should be informed that they arelies — totally untrue (as you can see documented there). Furthermore, economic sanctions are a prelude to military war.
If the public do not know that these economic sanctions are being done on the basis of pure lies, then how can the American people vote intelligently in the 2016 Presidential election? Foreign policy is a quintessentially national and Presidential thing. There can be no democracy on that type of basis, the basis of the public’s ignorance about such a crucial interntional-affairs matter — only dictatorship by liars. Only forced Government, in which the force that is being used against the public is mental force, deception, instead of physical force, violence.
So: almost all ‘news’ media turned out to be not real news-media, in this particular and very important instance. That should be major news, in itself.
Selections regarding what to publish, and how favorably to position a given news-headline, determine what the public comes to know, and what they don’t come to know. The news-media are, in fact, the gateway to democracy. If the gateway is closed-off at all of the major ‘news’ media, then how can the given nation possibly be democratic? It can’t — not really. It’s then a manipulated public, and the “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” aristocracy, with its servants rotating from government to mega-corporations and then back to government, back-and-forth, is actually manipulating the public, rather than serving the public, because the aristocracy is being served instead.
With the exception of about ten news-media, all news-media in the U.S. and UK have rejected all of my many news reports about different aspects of America’s rape of Ukraine, a rape that has been done specifically to use Ukraine as a proxy-battlefield to draw Russia into war, so that the American aristocracy can take over Russia. This rape has been supported by most European leaders. The Ukrainian people are being used.
One ‘news’-medium that has rejected all of these Ukraine reports is alternet, which had published a number of my previous news-reports, just none that deal with the rape of Ukraine, a rape that has been done by the Obama Administration, and especially none of my reports about the U.S. coup which had brought about the current racist-fascist (or nazi), anti-Russian Government there, and none about the new regime’s ethnic-cleansing to get rid of the residents in the area of Ukraine that had voted 90% for the man Obama overthrew. All of that is suppressed by them.
Ever since the 2 May 2014 Odessa massacre of pro-Russian demonstrators by Government thugs (largely financed by a friend of the Obama White House whom they appointed to become a key governor in Ukraine), I have been writing mainly about Ukraine, because I am attracted to those topics that are the most-suppressed news-beats in my country, the U.S., which is supposedly a democracy. Ukraine turns out to be the most-suppressed topic of all. The ‘news’ on it today is like the ‘news’ about Iraq was in 2002 and 2003: it’s stenographic ‘reporting’ from U.S.-Government-approved sources. Lies. And the harms that can result from the matter in Ukraine are vastly worse even than in Iraq.
On 31 July 2014, I emailed to Don Hazen, the founder and controlling person at alternet (and he was also the former publisher of Mother Jones — a magazine that likewise publishes nothing about the U.S. coup and ethnic cleansing in Ukraine) asking him:
“Nothing [of mine] has been posted since May 30th. Is something wrong?” This was right after my latest article, written after my looking at the polls, had concluded that the only thing that could possibly block a Republican takeover of the U.S. Senate and a solid-Republican Congress in Obama’s final two years as President would be a congressional Democrat introducing a bill of impeachment of Obama that would cite progressive reasons why he should be impeached. Doing this — that declaration of independence against a then-very-unpopular pro-aristocratic President — would remove the stain that Obama brings to the Democratic label, a stain that was holding down the electoral support for Democratic congressional candidates during this election year. Removing that authoritarian stain (especially when he was the most unpopular of all recent Presidents after the length of time he had spent in the White House) would be the only way that congressional Democrats could run for re-election without the Obama stain — the stain that “if you vote for Senator X, you are voting for Obama.” He turned the article down, like he turned down all of my Ukraine articles.
People such as Hazen were hiding the truth about Obama from liberals, in order to continue the myth that we have a real two-party system — not a government of the public by the nation’s aristocracy, a one-party system at the deeper level. Hazen replied:
sorry, but I don’t follow this, or buy into it as a scenario. the GOP is not going to impeach Obama…at least not now., it would hurt them in the elections in November. [I had dealt with that in my article, as you see there, but he ignored it.] Or probably never… Presidents dolots of ugly things… but they don’t get impeached. .. unless they are crooks or get blow jobs in the white house.I wouldn’t have favored Bush being impeached either. Still, it will never happen because it is only the right-wing base that has any taste for impeachment.You are imagining a scenario without a constituency. You seem far afield of how American politics works.Why would any Democrat try to impeach Obama.. it would be for most, an act of political suicide. [His entire comment was ignoring, not responding to, what I said, and the polling-data, in the submitted article.]You do, in my mind, seem blinded by your intense feelings about Obama… He does not have the passionyou imagine. And the end of the Obama administration is going to be mostly stalemated.. not a gleeful right-wing march asyou describe. [I had described no such thing.]
The real issue here was that Hazen simply didn’t care about Obama’s bringing nazis into control of Ukraine right next-door to Russia — something that presents an existential threat against our fellow-nuclear-power, Russia, the threat of building a NATO missile base in Ukraine a mere ten-minute flight-time to Moscow — a threat like the dictator Khrushchev had presented in 1962 against the United States and which our President JFK treated, correctly, as an existential threat to us. Why should Putin not treat this Obama-gambit in Ukraine the same way JFK did when the shoe was on the other foot, in Cuba? Hazen evidently feels that a racist-fascist, rabidly anti-Russian but nominally ‘Democratic’ President, who reigns for America’s aristocracy, should simply be accepted by Democrats as representing what we consider to be Democratic. But then, the Party means nothing at all.
I cannot wear that Party label any more — nor any party’s label. No congressional Democrat came forward with a bill of impeachment against Obama, a bill that many Republicans would have had tosign onto in order to keep the ‘Tea Party’ with them, and that could have passed Congress, but that in any case would have freed Democratic candidates from the Obama-nazi stain (the stain of not just elitism, as before, but now also nazism), and enabled them to prove that the 2014 congressional elections were about each one of these individual Democrats in Congress, and not at all about this unpopular President. Each Democrat in Congress would then have been able to go public with his view about this President, and thus maybe enough of them could have won for the Party to retain control in the Senate. My submitted article had proposed what I argued there was the only way that was even possible for the Demcratic Party not to lose the Senate. (All polls for months had shown that, barring some fundamental change in the political dynamics such as what I was here proposing, the Democrats would lose the Senate, so that Obama’s final two years would be spent signing and occasionally vetoing only Republican-written legislation. Hazen’s email entirely ignored my analysis, argument, and data.)
For me, it was bad enough that Obama (with his Wall Street bailouts etc.) is the first President in U.S. history to increase instead of decrease the inequality of income after an economic crash. Obama’s having gone nazi in Ukraine was simply too much.
On February 27th, after my having submitted to alternet a news-story titled “The Entire Case for Sanctions Against Russia Is Pure Lies” (a report that you also can see and evaluate for yourself at that other site), I received back from “article submissions” at alternet, the brief note, “Feel free to stop sending us your submissions.” I asked Hazen whether he was behind that; he never answered.
Well, now, alternet virtually admits that they don’t even consider my article-submissions, after I had started criticizing Obama for his nazism and ethnic cleansing in Ukraine.
If anyone wonders why the polls show that Americans’ fear of Russia is soaring, after the U.S. has turned the tables on the Cuban Missile Crisis and become itself the dictatorship now, it’s this country’s controlled press (like Hazen). The aristocracy creates and builds all of the large ‘news’ media in this country; they block out the truth regarding the most important issues (such as Ukraine), the ones that voters most need to know about, in order to vote intelligently.
If readers wonder why Mother Jones, Progressive, Nation, Atlantic, Harpers, NBC, CNN, NYT, WSJ, Salon, Slate, Alternet, etc., don’t even report the Obama-stooge-regime’s bombings to exterminate or expell the residents (Obama’s people call them all ’terrorists’) in the area of Ukraine that had voted 90% for the man whom Obama overthrew in February 2014 — if anyone wonders how the U.S. could in silence become the sponsor of such a vicious and ongoing ethnic cleansing campaign — it’s because of ’news’ executives such as Don Hazen. They don’t want the public to know certain things; and both ‘right’ and ‘left’ sides of the aristocracy are censoring-out this type of reality.
Readers should treasure news-sites like this one, the one you’re now reading, that refuse to bow to the aristocracy. Readers here should tell their friends about this site. They should spread the word about it, and about the corruptness of the ‘news’ media in general, in our fading ‘democracy.’
How can democracy exist if the news-media are controlled by the aristocracy? It can’t. What exists then is an aristocratic government. Not a democratic government.
Any country whose major political parties (meaning the ones that seriously contend to win leadership) are all controlled by the aristocracy, is no democracy at all. That’s what we now have. Ukraine is an aristocratic operation, which could blow up the world, and which already has caused over a million refugees, where there had previously been peace. Yet, only about ten (all rather small-audience) sites (such as this), are reporting the reality — all others are hiding the reality — about historically so very important a matter, which could end up producing a nuclear war.
News-sites like this one are therefore the only hope for restoring democracy, where democracy formerly had existed. And maybe we’re not yet too late to prevent a nuclear war.
Each reader can check a news-site’s honesty, by googling its name and the word “Ukraine” and seeing whether the realities that I have linked to here are reflected there. If the answer is no, then I would not call it a news-site, but merely a propaganda-site — because these realities are precisely that: they are real. And they are important.
That’s the best way I know of, to test the honesty of any given national-news site.
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
A New World Order: A Threat to Sovereign States
New World Order a big threat to sovereign states, speakers at an international conference say.
The anti-war initiative, Perdana Global Peace Foundation, has a single goal of putting an end to war.
Founded by Malaysia’s former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the Foundation encourages dialogues between different nations, people and organisations to foster and energise global peace.
Its sister foundation, the Kuala Lumpur Foundation to Criminalise War aims to undertake all necessary measures to criminalise war and energise peace. It also found former US President George Bush and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, among others, guilty of war crimes.
The recent activity by the Perdana Global Peace Foundation was a one-day international conference titled the New World Order, Recipe for War or Peace.
The keynote address was delivered by Dr Mahathir who warned that Malaysia might lose its independence if the government falls prey to the ploys of the US to increase its global hegemony through economic means.
He pointed out that the Transpacific Partnership or TPPA is a New World Order strategy by a powerful pact of people led by the US to dominate the world economy.
Dr Mahathir said globalisation and borderless trade are being used to establish a “one world government”.
Referring to the Free Trade Agreement as a regulated trade deal, he said countries that sign on the deal would be subjected to more rules and regulations than ever before.
Dr Mahathir also pointed out that disputes arising from these trade deals mean corporations could sue sovereign states at investor arbitration tribunals, in secrecy.
The New World Order refers to the emergence of a totalitarian world government.
Other prominent speakers at the conference also said that a secretive power elite led by the United States wants to replace sovereign nation states through regime change.
Prominent academic and author Dr Michel Chossudovsky warned that the so-called war on terrrorism is a front to propagate America’s global hegemony and create a New World Order.
Dr Chossudovsky said terrorism is made in the US and that terrorists are not the product of the Muslim world.
According to him, the US global war on terrorism was used to enact anti-terrorism laws that demonised Muslims in the Western world and created Islamophobia.
Elaborating on his argument, Dr Chossudovsky said that NATO was responsible for recruiting members of the Islamic state while Israel is funding “global jihad elements inside Syria.
Dr Chossudovsky, who is also the founder of the Centre for Research and Globalisation, further emphasised that the global war on terrorism is a fabrication, a big lie and a crime against humanity.
Echoing Dr Chossudovsky’s arguments, Malaysia’s prominent political scientist, Islamic reformist and activist Dr Chandra Muzaffar said that the US has always manipulated religion to further its global hegemony on sovereign states.
For example, he said the Arab spring was brought about by Colonel Muammar Muhammad Gaddafi’s resistance to US dominance.
But Dr Thomas Barnett who has worked in the US national security services since the end of the Cold War refuted the arguments put forth by the conference speakers as mere allegations and that people prefer to believe in conspiracy theories.
Touching on the subject of economic hegemony through free trade agreements, Dr Barnett said that it’s only normal that countries that sign on to international trade deals are subjected to some international treaties and business protocols that they must follow.
He also says that trade partners with the US have accrued many benefits and that the US has gone out of its way over the last 40 years to encourage peaceful development.
Barnett also pointed out that for the first time in Asian history there is an increasingly prosperous and powerful China, India, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia and Japan.
Brushing aside Barnett’s argument, Dr Mahathir in his speech warned governments to be cautious, saying that those who refuse to conform are subjected to economic sanctions.
He also said that the one world government wants to undermine all other governments and would not hesitate to invade and occupy sovereign states to achieve its agenda.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten