Freelance correspondente in China, Eefje Rammeloo: 'Kinderen krijgen betekent in Shanghai niet je figuur verliezen.’
In 1922 stelde de vooraanstaande Amerikaanse media-ideoloog, Walter Lippmann, in zijn standaardwerk Public Opinion dat:
public opinions must be organized for the press if they are to be sound, not by the press... Without some form of censorschip, propaganda in the strict sense of the word is impossible. In order to conduct propaganda there must be some barrier between the public and the event. Access to the real environment must be limited, before anyone can create a pseudo-environment that he thinks is wise or desirable... Though it is itself an irrational force the power of public opinion might be placed at the disposal of those who stood for workable law against brute assertion.
Ter informatie: Lippmann was geenszins een links-radicale opiniemaker, maar de woordvoerder van het Amerikaanse establishment, die op 14 september 1964, uit handen van president Johnson de 'Presidential Medal of Freedom' ontving, de hoogste Amerikaanse onderscheiding voor een burger.
Een treffend voorbeeld van het feit dat '[w]ithout some form of censorschip, propaganda in the strict sense of the word is impossible,' gaf vanochtend NRC Handelsblad door het volgende mede te delen:
Goedemorgen NRC-lezer. Dit is vandaag belangrijk:
China's diplomatie wordt steeds zorgwekkender. Niet langer probeert het met zachte hand andere landen zijn wil op te dringen. Het dwingt, manipuleert en infiltreert in buitenlandse organisaties.
Het bericht is geschreven door Eefje Rammeloo, een free-lance correspondente in China, die voor verschillende mainstream-media werkt, aangezien de zelfbenoemde 'kwaliteitskrant' deze opkomende wereldmacht te onbelangrijk vindt om een eigen correspondent te bekostigen. Dit is onthullend als men weet dat 'Goldman Sachs projects that China's GDP should match America's by 2027, and then steadily pull ahead,' en dat ‘in 2050, the U.S. economy will be much smaller than China’s.'
Met het oog daarop zal vóór 2020 tenminste 60 procent van de Amerikaanse marinevloot voor de kust van China zijn gestationeerd, want, zoals bekend, worden de westerse belangen al eeuwenlang met grootscheeps geweld verdedigd, en zal ook de elite in Washington en op Wall Street het nu niet toestaan dat China de macht van de hegemonistische VS aantast. Vandaar dat de westerse mainstream-media nu al bezig zijn Rusland en China als de grote boemannen af te schilderen. Hoe dit verloopt wordt haarscherp aangetoond door het grote voorbeeld van de gecorrumpeerde westerse 'vrije pers,' te weten The New York Times, de enige krant waarop mijn vrouw en ik geabonneerd zijn. Niet omdat deze krant zo goed is, maar omdat de lezer dan meteen weet wat de rest van de westerse mainstream-pers gaat melden. Juist in het geval van Rusland en China is de Times een schoolvoorbeeld van Lippmann's propagandamodel.
Welnu, The New York Times is al enkele weken bezig met het criminaliseren en demoniseren van de Chinese leider Xi Jinping. Het gevolg is geweest dat de freelancer Eefje Rammeloo van de NRC-redactie in Amsterdam opdracht kreeg om aan deze hetze een steentje bij te dragen, zodat ook de Nederlandse kwaliteitslezer gemobiliseerd kan worden tegen het toekomstige Grote Kwaad in de wereld. Eefje Rammeloo, trotse moeder van twee kinderen, gaat het ver schoppen met haar bijdrage aan de voorbereidingen van de moeder van alle oorlogen die in het verschiet ligt. Haar kinderen zullen de prijs daarvoor betalen. But who cares, zolang zij maar een inkomen heeft. Het is de kleinburger die niet verder kan kijken dan de eigen voordeur. Zij mag dan wel angstvallig op haar 'figuur' hebben gelet, maar in intellectueel opzicht slaat zij een modderfiguur. Eefje, lees dit eens:
Return of the Evil Empire
by JASON HIRTHLER
You have to hand it to them. The United States media machine is unequaled at producing and disseminating misinformation. It begins in the bowels of the State Department or White House or Pentagon and is filtered out through the government’s front organizations, otherwise known as Mainstream Media (MSM).
In 2014 the U.S. has succeeded in demonizing Vladimir Putin and Russia, precipitating a New Cold War that may yet become a hot one. The evil empire is back. The White House has made proficient use of mass media propaganda to get the job done. First, they’ve controlled the narrative. This is critical for two reasons: one, because it permits the White House to sweep the February coup in Kiev into the dustbin of American memory, never to be seen again. Second, it has allowed it to swiftly assert its claim that Russia is a dangerously expansionist power on the edges of a serene and peace-loving Europe. In other words, the omission of one fact and commission of another.
On the former front, by the State Department’s own concession, it spent some $5 billion in Ukraine, fomenting dissent under the standard guise of democracy promotion. The myriad NGOs beneath the nefarious cloud of the National Endowment for Democracy are little more than Trojan horses through which the State Department can launch subversive activities on foreign turf. We don’t know all the surely insidious details of the putsch, but there are suggestions that the violence was staged by and on behalf of the groups that now sit in power, including bickering neofascists that were foolishly handed the nation’s security portfolio.
On the latter end, a frightful portrait of a revanchist Russia will be presented for public consumption. But consider the context before you consign Putin to the sordid annals of imperial tyrants. A belligerent superpower arrives on your doorstep by fostering a violent coup in a neighboring nation with the obvious intent of ensuring Kiev accepts an IMF deal rather than a better Russian one, and further that Ukraine become the newest and perhaps decisive outpost of NATO. Had you been in his shoes, would you have permitted an illegitimate, Western-infiltrated government to challenge the integrity of your Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol? Doubtful.
Crimeans swiftly organized a secession vote—swiftly denounced as fraud by Western media (with some credence, it should be added). Given their Russian ethnic profile and quite credible fears of oppression from Kiev, whose nationalist bully boys were already posturing about eviscerating Russian citizens rights, Russia’s annexation of Crimea is certainly understandable to minds not saturated in Western propaganda.
And yet the majority of the West, meaning the U.S. and Europe, seem content with this narrative of a recrudescent Russian empire with imperial designs on Europe. The White House has successfully characterized Russia as the Slavic aggressor while sweeping NATO’s undeniably hostile behavior beneath the rug of its false rectitude. Claims of the need to defend another nation’s “sovereignty” are always a bit rich coming from the White House. Yet the rhetoric of outrage streams forth from Washington, and it sometimes seems the principal qualification for a high-level appointment in an American administration is the capacity for a blithe hypocrisy that brooks no irony.
This is no surprise. A sophisticated doctrinal system adept at manufacturing consent will succeed less by what it asserts than by what it leaves out. The facts omitted are always inconvenient ones. Among other missing pieces of the story currently being peddled by the MSM, is the issue of NATO’s raison d’être, which vanished with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the dissolution of the USSR. No matter, it has swiftly refashioned its mandate into a rapid-reaction force ready to descend on flashpoints around the globe, like Serbia and Libya and Afghanistan. Despite promises to the contrary, it has essentially worked to bring all the former Warsaw Pact countries into its U.S.-dominated embrace. The goal is self-evident: put missiles on Russia’s doorstep, the better to alienate Moscow from Berlin and ensure that Washington isn’t left out in the cold by its rivals.
If recent history weren’t sufficient to lay plain NATO’s blueprint of aggression, consider the behavior of its chief spokesman, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, a frothing hawk who yesterday announced plans for a large and permanent military presence in Poland and the Baltics. Ready with prefabricated war motifs, Rasmussen said the plan was to deploy, 'what I would call a spearhead within [a] response force at very, very, high readiness.' He generously conceded that such a rapid response unit would require 'supplies, equipment, preparation of infrastructure, bases, headquarters. The bottom line is you will in the future see a more visible NATO presence in the east.'
Sounds like war footing. Sounds like chest-thumping, drum-beating posturing. Sounds like NATO baiting the Russia Bear. No doubt it hopes to lure Moscow into aggressive actions with which it can a) quickly smear Putin in the MSM, and b) use to rationalize a massive arsenal in eastern Europe.
Note that Rasmussen’s pronouncement was no doubt timed to coincide with a tête-à-tête between Putin and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in Minsk, Belarus. What purpose exactly did the stillborn summit serve, given the bellicosity emanating from Brussels by one of Ukraine’s leading backers? One supposes the idea was to gain negotiating leverage, as if Russia hasn’t been observing NATO’s covetous moves for the last twenty years.
In a domestic context, this scenario might be described as entrapment. The West seems intent on manufacturing a conflict, if not a war, where none existed. Peace, described as elusive in the press, could be achieved in a matter of days if the White House were so inclined. Instead, it prefers escalation. And sooner or later, Russia will move more visibly to defend the eastern rebellion, stepping squarely into the trap. In fact, it may already have.
Yesterday NATO released U.S.-supplied satellite imagery supposedly showing Russian troops “establishing firing positions” inside eastern Ukraine, a claim instantly ridiculed by Moscow. Naturally, the imagery was obscure. Impossible to verify, but not hard to believe. Despite its own flood of propaganda, it would be credulous not to imagine the Russians supplying arms and tactical support to the so-called “pro-Russian insurgents” in the east. Nor would it be astonishing to see Russian troops cross the border. Again, the question arises: what would you do? Particularly given the Kiev-led brutality aimed at eastern 'rebels'? Would you respond like Putin has, or rather more recklessly, perhaps like John F. Kennedy when he heard of Russian missiles in Cuba? Or imagine a pro-Russian Mexican government, installed by a Moscow coup, shelling pro-American citizens near the U.S. border. In imagining how Washington might respond, the words ‘restraint’ and ‘judicious’ don’t come readily to mind.
Little if any coverage is given to another critical piece of real story, namely the obvious economic rivalry underlying the conflict. Ukraine is a major chip in the tussle for access to Black Sea resources, and for primacy in the provision of those resources to European homes. Likewise, the importance of channeling that access and supply through IMF-engineered loans, naturally denominated in dollars and central to the dollar’s now-threatened role as the world’s reserve currency.
Next, the false historical narrative will be distanced from the White House through internationalist channels which, although they are fronts for American power, will be perceived by many as independent judgments that happen to agree with the American assessment. U.S.-controlled NATO, the U.S.-dominated United Nations, and the U.S.-submissive EU will convene to censure Russia, ignore Kiev crimes against its own population, and clamor for more sanctions and a provocative NATO build-up in eastern Europe. Short shrift has been given to the news that the BRICS nations — representing some 40 percent of the world’s population — have declined to join the West in its sanctions regime.
But such history—distant or near — is trampled underfoot, beneath the crushing weight of MSM misinformation, thanks to which we can expect millions of Americans to dutifully wave their star-spangled totems as our ships and drones and battalions reluctantly set off to defend our freedoms once more.
Jason Hirthler is a veteran of the communications industry. He lives and works in New York City and can be reached at jasonhirthler@gmail.com.
Eefje Rammeloo schreef berichten voor 'Elsevier Juist, De Groene Amsterdammer, Deutsche Welle, De Tijd en Knack, en maakte reportages voor VPRO’s Bureau Buitenland.' Het is maar dat u het weet.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten