zaterdag 23 oktober 2021

MediaLens: Manufacturing Ignorance

 

Manufacturing Ignorance: Keeping The Public Away From Power

In their classic book on the news media, ‘Manufacturing Consent’, Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky presented a ‘propaganda model’ of how the major broadcasters and newspapers operate. Whereas the ‘mainstream’ media declare that their aim is to educate, inform and entertain the public, their actual societal purpose ‘on matters that are of significance for established power’ is to avert any ‘danger’ that the public can ‘assert meaningful control over the political process’ (Herman and Chomsky, ‘Manufacturing Consent’, Vintage, 1988/1994, p. 303).

As media analyst Lance Bennett wrote:

‘The public is exposed to powerful persuasive messages from above and is unable to communicate meaningfully through the media in response to these messages…. Leaders have usurped enormous amounts of political power and reduced popular control over the political system by using the media to generate support, compliance, and just plain confusion among the public.’ (Ibid., p. 303)

Thus, rather than manufacturing public consent for elite policies and priorities, manufacturing public ignorance is the more desirable and effective goal. After all, explicit public ‘consent’ is typically not required for the UK government, for example, to attack the welfare system, underfund and carve-up the NHS for commercial purposes, sell arms to Saudi Arabia to bomb Yemeni civilianssabre-rattle in the Indo-Pacific to ‘counter’ China, or increase its nuclear weapons arsenal by 40 per cent

Significant public activism and opposition to state-corporate power need to be rooted in widespread shared public knowledge. But, in the absence of adequate public knowledge, and thus the reduced ‘threat’ of an informed populace participating in a real democracy, power is more or less free to do as it pleases.

Take a recent Reuters news report following the death of Colin Powell, one of the perpetrators of the supreme international crime of invading and occupying Iraq. Like a parody from the satirical website The Onion, the article was titled: ‘Powell remembered as “one of the finest Americans never to be President”’.

As Matt Kennard of Declassified UK noted:

‘The wildest thing about Western establishment media is its journalists aren’t even working under threat of prison or violence.

‘They do state propaganda – and sanitise our worst war criminals – totally off their own back. Incredible discipline and dedication to serving power.’

Recall that, in February 2003, as the US and allies were preparing to invade Iraq, US Secretary of State Colin Powell had addressed the United Nations Security Council, dramatically holding up a small glass vial he said could contain anthrax, a biological weapon.

‘Saddam Hussein and his regime will stop at nothing until something stops him,’ stated Powell, arguing that Iraq was deceiving UN weapons inspectors. He claimed that he was providing ‘facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence’. Powell’s presentation was seemingly watertight, based on supposedly undeniable evidence, and it was reported as such by an obedient ‘mainstream’ news media across the globe.

But it was all lies, and it is ‘irrefutable’ that Powell ‘consciously deceived the world’, as US political analyst Jon Schwarz noted. Around one million Iraqis died as a result of the invasion-occupation, while many more millions became refugees, the country’s infrastructure devastated.

With her customary sardonic wit, the Australian political writer Caitlin Johnstone described the infamous image of Powell holding a vial while addressing the UN Security Council as a ‘viral anti-war meme’:

‘Over the years Powell’s meme has been an invaluable asset for opponents of western military interventionism and critics of US propaganda narratives about empire-targeted nations, serving as a single-image debunk of any assertion that it is sensible to trust the claims US officials make about any government that Washington doesn’t like.’

For the benefit of credulous, power-friendly journalists and anyone else who believed that Powell had made just one mistake that he bitterly regretted for the rest of his life, she added:

‘Powell’s other contributions to the world include covering up and participating in war crimes in Vietnam, facilitating atrocities in Central America, and destroying Iraqi civilian infrastructure in the Gulf War. But it’s hard to dispute that his greatest lasting legacy will be his immortal reminder to future generations that there is never, ever a valid reason to trust anything US officials tell us about a government they wish to bring down.’

She added:

‘Be sure to remind everyone of Powell’s sociopathic facilitation of human slaughter often and loudly in the coming hours. Public opinion is the only thing keeping western war criminals from The Hague, after all, and those war criminals are keenly aware of this fact. At times like these, they suddenly become highly invested in making sure that regular people “respect the dead,” not because they respect any human alive or dead, but because they cannot allow the death to become an opportunity to amplify and change public opinion about their egregious murderous crimes.’

The Persecution Of Julian Assange

As we have recently observed in media alerts (here and here), the state-corporate media, including and especially BBC News, have been complicit in keeping the public largely ignorant about the case of Julian Assange. Likewise, the case’s likely terrifying implications for further limiting public knowledge about what governments and big business actually get up to. As founder of WikiLeaks, Assange has probably done more than anyone in at least a generation to expose the war crimes of the US and its allies.

The revelations that the CIA had plans to kidnap or even kill Assange, almost entirely ignored by BBC News, has prompted concerned calls from advocates of ‘press freedom’ (such as it is in the West). The American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Knight First Amendment Institute, Committee to Protect Journalists, and Reporters Without Borders are among the signatories of a letter demanding that the case against Assange be dropped.

Next Wednesday, a substantive U.S. appeal hearing will be heard at the High Court in London. Lord Justice Timothy Holroyde, the High Court judge who reversed an earlier court order to bar the U.S. from appealing Assange’s medical issues, will preside over the hearing. According to Consortium News legal analyst Alexander Mercouris:

‘It is highly unusual for a judge who has already ruled in favour of one party to continue on the bench. In most cases, fresh judges would be brought in who have had no part in earlier rulings for either side.’

Mercouris called the decision ‘extremely disturbing news’ and ‘very worrying. Nothing in this case is proceeding as it should do.’ 

Nina Cross has examined the insidious role of the BBC in the state-sponsored persecution of Assange. First, in an overview of BBC history, she showed that:

‘Britain’s most powerful “national asset” helps keep the British people in check while serving imperialism.’

In the case of Assange, the BBC has helped ‘to control the narratives around the stripping of Assange’s asylum’, typically presenting him as someone who is attempting to evade the law.

Cross added that the BBC is serving:

‘the interests of the British state apparatus, enabling a culture of impunity by spoon feeding its audience government narratives, manipulating perception, and promoting ridicule and disdain. The persecution of Assange that increasingly looks like a slow assassination by the UK and US authorities could not be so conceivable without a servile media.’

She continued:

‘The impunity to persecute Assange has been enabled by the BBC through omission and silence. Instead of practising journalism it has turned a blind eye to abuses of the British authorities and those of its allies. The BBC’s behaviour is contrary: anti-journalism, anti-truth.’

This is not new. As Noam Chomsky has observed:

‘Governments will use whatever technology is available to combat their primary enemy – their own population.’

In this sense, BBC News is a form of technology that the UK government deploys to keep the British population away from the levers of power.

The ‘Illusion Of A Democratic System’

Take the case of UK arms sales. A new film and report by Matt Kennard and Phil Miller of Declassified UK investigated the largely-hidden role of a factory owned by arms exporter BAE Systems in the Lancashire village of Warton. The factory supplies military equipment to the Saudi Arabian regime, enabling it to continue its devastating attacks on Yemen which, for years, has been suffering the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

Kennard and Miller noted that:

‘Boris Johnson recently visited Warton and claimed the BAE site was part of his “levelling up agenda”. No journalist covering the visit seems to have reported the factory’s role in a war.’

Back in London, Declassified UK interviewed Molly Mulready, who was a lawyer at the Foreign Office from 2014-19. She was responsible for giving legal advice in relation to exporting arms to the Middle East. She said:

‘Boris Johnson was very casual and jokey when we would go in to talk to him about arms to Saudi Arabia. We would go in to brief him about Yemen and he would joke around and waste everybody’s time and it was a bit mind blowing because you know, you’re discussing civilian casualties, you’re discussing the fact that innocent people have died and that British supplied bombs have played a part in that.’

In 2017, Campaign Against Arms Trade took the UK government to court over the export of weaponry from places like Warton to Saudi Arabia. Mulready was tasked with trying to defend the government: ‘something she now bitterly regrets.’ Clearly upset, she told Kennard and Miller:

‘I’m so ashamed that I had anything to do with it. There have been tens of thousands of civilians killed in the bombing and there are millions of people who are food insecure. There are children in Yemen who are starving to death. The Saudis seem to have absolutely no compassion whatsoever.’

The arms sales violate the UK government’s own licencing laws, Mulready believes, and contribute to Saudi war crimes. 

As Kennard and Miller concluded:

‘Yet they [UK arms sales] continue, along with the weekly cargo flight we filmed.’ 

The Morning Star reported Mulready’s important testimony. But, according to our search of the ProQuest newspaper database, no other British newspapers have done so. 

In a recent interview with Lowkey, the British rapper and political activist, Kennard said that in his work as a journalist he wants to ‘pierce the propaganda bubble’. He emphasised the ‘illusion of a democratic system’ in the UK:

‘We do not live in a democracy. That’s what people need to understand. This is not a democratic state. Britain is an oligarchy.’

On the tragicomic notion that ‘Britain is a force for good in the world’, he commented:

‘It’s an amazing mythology. It’s mirrored by the US. They have this thing called “American exceptionalism” which is how America operates very differently along principled lines; very differently to all superpowers. They don’t deal with [their own] interests, etc. It’s literally the intellectual level of about a five-year-old.’

Kennard continued:

‘But the interesting thing about our society is you cannot work in any elite part of the intellectual industries unless you believe it…I’m looking every day at the reality of what Britain does in the world. And they are a force for reaction. They are a force for repression. They’re a force for militarism. They’re a force for destroying hope wherever it appears. They’re a junior partner to the US, but they’re actually an integral player. And the imperial operations of both are quite similar.’

What is the way ahead then? Rather than looking for a ‘saviour’, such as Labour centrists Sir Keir Starmer or Andy Burnham, Kennard suggested:

‘Let’s focus on different strategies, i.e. building extra-parliamentary movements and understanding what Labour’s role in the British polity is, which is to support the British establishment, and absorb the radical left and neutralise it.’

‘There Are No Climate Leaders’

As we have often emphasised in our work, in this era of worsening climate instability, time is rapidly running out. Climate activist Ben See observes:

‘Very few people seem aware that we only have about three or four years left before Earth’s species start being smashed by catastrophic 1.5°C of global warming in the context of toxic pollution, deforestation, etc. Perhaps our media and education systems are…utterly inadequate?’

The forthcoming United Nations COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, starting on 31 October, will doubtless generate yet more ‘blah, blah, blah’, as Greta Thunberg so memorably summed up all the decades-long, political hot air on climate. She rightly observed that:

‘no one treats the crisis like a crisis, the existential warnings keep on drowning in a steady tide of greenwash and everyday media news flow.’

She added:

‘The truth is there are no climate leaders. Not yet. At least not among high-income nations. The level of public awareness and the unprecedented pressure from the media that would be required for any real leadership to appear is still basically nonexistent.’

During COP26, we can expect plenty of coverage of tense negotiations and exhausted delegates finally delivering an ‘agreed’ outcome. But there will be zero or negligible attention given to the unjust system of global economics that is driving humans into oblivion.

The endless corporate drive to privatise the planet was highlighted in a recent article by journalist and researcher Whitney Webb titled, ‘Wall Street’s Takeover of Nature Advances with Launch of New Asset Class’. She reported:

‘Last month, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) announced it had developed a new asset class and accompanying listing vehicle meant “to preserve and restore the natural assets that ultimately underpin the ability for there to be life on Earth.” Called a natural asset company, or NAC, the vehicle will allow for the formation of specialized corporations “that hold the rights to the ecosystem services produced on a given chunk of land, services like carbon sequestration or clean water.” These NACs will then maintain, manage and growthe natural assets they commodify, with the end of goal of maximizing the aspects of that natural asset that are deemed by the company to be profitable.’

Simply put, capitalists are seeking to control, not just ecosystems as ‘financial assets’, but the rights that people around the world have to ‘ecosystems services’, including the benefits that humans receive from Nature:

‘These include food production, tourism, clean water, biodiversity, pollination, carbon sequestration and much more.’

The estimated ‘monetary value’ of Nature’s ‘assets’ have been priced at $4,000 trillion. Webb concluded:

‘Thus, NACs open up a new feeding ground for predatory Wall Street banks and financial institutions that will allow them to not just dominate the human economy, but the entire natural world.’

The obscenity of this is almost beyond belief. Randall Wray, a professor of economics in New York, warned:

‘From the get-go, capitalism has been all about exploitation. Marx’s followers will point to exploitation of workers, but that’s the tip of the iceberg. Capitalism originated in the large plantations of the New World, exploiting the slaves, and Africa itself — which bore the burden of producing the humans that would be kidnapped and shipped across the seas to create the Old World’s wealth. It exploited the environment of America’s seemingly infinite natural resources, abandoning the land it exhausted, moving ever westward in its genocidal conquest of the continent. It spewed its waste into the water, the air, and the bodies of creatures great and small. It put a money price on the formerly free communal resources so that it could exploit them to extinction.’

He added:

‘Capitalism has always been celebrated for its presumed efficiency. In fact, it is supremely inefficient. It survives only because it is the greatest system ever developed for exploitation of man and nature. It pushes costs off to the environment, “other” people, families, governments, and our “future.” It is ever on the lookout for new frontiers of exploitation. And in that quest, human survival is at risk.’

Do not expect to be hearing much, if any, about all this from the state-corporate media in the weeks, months and years ahead; or however much time homo sapiens has left. 

DC

https://www.medialens.org/2021/manufacturing-ignorance-keeping-the-public-away-from-power/



Derk Sauer, Julian Assange, en De Andere Krant 3


De aanleiding om in de vorige aflevering aandacht te besteden aan de reactionaire opvattingen van de neoliberale hoofdredacteur van
De Andere Krant is simpel. Karel Beckman wilde dat Derk Sauer, die mede dankzij de steun van oud KGB-ers tijdens het corrupte Jeltsin-tijdperk in Moskou multi-miljonair wist te worden, een weerwoord zou schrijven op een puur feitelijk verslag dat ik over deze SP-multimiljonair had geschreven. Als journalist verbaasde me dit, en dus verdiepte ik mij in Beckman’s meningen. Ik las een aantal opinies van hem op de website Wynia’s Week, en verdiepte me in zijn boek Beyond Democracy (2012) dat hij samen met ene Frank Karsten had geschreven, en waarin beiden met grote stelligheid beweren dat ‘democracy does not lead to solidarity, prosperity and liberty but to social conflict, runaway spending and a tyrannical government.’ Typerend is dat Karsten oprichter is van het Mises-Instituut, genoemd naar de Oostenrijkse econoom Ludwig von Mises, die in zijn boek Liberalism (1927) ondermeer poneerde dat:


It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Mises 


Toch was Von Mises een fel tegenstander van enige overheidscontrole op de economie, en wantrouwde als economisch adviseur van de ‘austro-facistische’ kanselier Engelbert Dollfuss de democratie. Ook Beckman en Karsten zijn van mening dat:


Although the crisis of democracy is widely acknowledged, there is virtually no criticism of the democratic system itself. There is virtually no one who blames democracy as such for the problems we are experiencing. 


De dogma waarvan de hoofdredacteur van De Andere Krant uitgaat is dat:


Libertarianism is based on the principle that individuals have no obligation to sacrifice themselves to the collective, as is the case under socialism, fascism and democracy,


een opvatting die in de praktijk van alledag neerkomt op een pleidooi voor het recht van de sterkste, zoals het neoliberalisme sinds eind jaren zeventig van de vorig eeuw heeft aangetoond, waardoor de kloof tussen arm en rijk, ook nu in het Westen, almaar dieper wordt, getuige de resultaten van nagenoeg elk wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Zo berichtte het gerenommeerde Amerikaanse zakentijdschrift Forbes op 22 juli 2020 onder de kop ‘The Rich Are Getting Richer’ zelfs ‘During The Pandemic’:


CEOs, executives and large shareholders of the ‘winners’ made fortunes — on top of their existing fortunes. Most families don't even possess an emergency fund of three months’ savings to get them through tough times. It's been reported that people are unable to make their rent and mortgage payments, risking eviction… On Monday, when millions of unemployed Americans poured their cups of coffee and started searching for jobs online, Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos saw his net worth grow by $13 billion. You’re not reading this wrong. Yes, it's the largest intraday jump in net worth, according to Bloomberg… The fear is that a small group of people are now controlling the lion's share of wealth, power, political connections and control, while the vast majority of the population is either just getting by or hanging on by their fingernails…


This isn't a new phenomenon and we’ve seen this play out in the past. CNN says, ‘We've seen this happen before, in the recovery from the 2008 economic meltdown — which, for most Americans, was never complete. Indeed, most U.S. households went into this pandemic with a lingering economic hangover from the 2008 crash. Only the top 20% of U.S. households had fully recovered the wealth they had prior to the Great Recession.’ It was a different story for the über-rich, and ‘the wealthiest 400 billionaires in the United States — had fully recovered their wealth within three years. Within a decade, their wealth had increased over 80%.’


This lopsided economy may be the incendiary spark that, in part, created the anger, resentment and frustration, which led to the riots, looting and mayhem we saw last month and continue to witness in places, like Portland, Oregon. Maybe it's not a coincidence that we’ve all seen the emergence of ‘Karens’ (hysterisch reagerende Amerikaanse vrouwen. svh) and the male equivalents, who are filled with uncontrollable hate and spew rage-fueled rants that can be viewed daily on Twitter.  


The pandemic led to the creation of a new underclass of workers. These are the overlooked folks who stock shelves at Amazon, shop for our food in supermarkets, deliver packages, drive Ubers, take care of elderly residents at nursing homes and engage in an array of other gig-economy and lower-wage work. Those essential jobs place these people in dire situations, which substantially increase their health risks. Usually these are dead-end, no-growth roles that they remain stuck in.


If this trend continues, America could become a medieval, feudalistic country. We’ll have an elite oligarchy running things, supported by a coterie of top lawyers, accountants and managers. At the bottom of the pyramid will be the working class conducting all of the dirty jobs for low pay, at the cost of personal health risks.


This doesn’t mean we need to take the wealth away. Our elected leaders need to formulate smart strategies to ensure that the other 99% of Americans will have a forward path toward leading a successful life for themselves and their children,


aldus het tijdschrift voor de elite. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2020/07/22/the-rich-are-getting-richer-during-the-pandemic/?sh=1b23b4a05c7e 


Deze feiten weerleggen de mening van de hoofdredacteur van De Andere Krant, Karel Beckman dat ‘in onze democratie het socialisme heeft gezegevierd over het liberalisme. De Broederschap heeft het gewonnen van De Vrijheid’ en dat ‘Wie het waagt om te suggereren dat bijvoorbeeld economische belangen ook mee zouden moeten wegen in de besluitvorming’ meteen ‘wordt weggezet als ongevoelige egoïst,’ om als bewijs aan te voeren dat ‘Mark Rutte niet voor niks, goedkeurend, in het parlement, begin april [zei]: ‘We zijn natuurlijk een land dat in de kern diep-socialistisch is.’


Toen ik dit las besefte ik onmiddellijk dat mijn besluit om verdere medewerking aan De Andere Krant te stoppen, de juiste was geweest. Beckman’s neoliberale nonsens is nog lachwekkender dan die van de mainstream-media. De vraag is nu: wat gebeurt er toch op dit moment van grote verwarring op elk gebied? Net als bij Café Weltschmerz is sprake van een ontwikkeling die al in de oudheid bekend was, en die door de zeventiende eeuwse Franse wiskundige Blaise Pascal als volgt werd geformuleerd als ‘Ces extrémités se touchent.’  Ook nu ‘raken de uitersten elkaar,’ hervormingsgezinden en reactionairen raken elkaar op het punt van hun gemeenschappelijk wantrouwen tegen de steeds oppermachtig wordende staat. Dit is evenwel een gevaarlijke ontwikkeling, aangezien reactionairen als Karel Beckman zich beroepen op het recht van de sterkste, of zoals hij in zijn boek schrijft:


In the 19th century libertarianism was defended both by a number of ‘anarcho-capitalists’ and a group of classical liberal economists, mainly from Austria. A current academic center of libertarianism in the US is the Mises Institute, named after the great Austrian free market economist Ludwig von Mises. In 1974 Friedrich Hayek, a student of Mises, received the Nobel prize in economics.


Lijnrecht tegenover dit neoliberalisme staan de progressieve hervormingsgezinden die beseffen dat de deregulerende en privatiserende staat in handen is gevallen van een kleine elite die met niet bestaand geld zich schatrijk heeft gespeculeerd, ten koste van de gemeenschap. Hoewel de neoliberalen op elk doorslaggevend front hebben gewonnen,  blijven zij, net als Beckman, beweren dat zij verloren hebben van het socialisme dan wel marxisme. Zo heeft zich aan de Universiteit Leiden de afgelopen decennia een groepje reactionairen verzameld, onder aanvoering van onder andere professor Paul Cliteur.  Op de website dewereldmorgen.be van 27 juni 2018 schreef een Vlaamse recensent het volgende over hen:


Wie de laatste tijd de berichtgeving over… Gramsci (Italiaanse marxistische filosoof. svh) heeft gevolgd, echter, kan vergeven worden te denken dat de man eigenlijk een bloedhekel had aan de westerse cultuur. Volgens een publicatie van de in Leiden docerende Paul Cliteur, bijvoorbeeld, hebben Gramsci en zijn kompanen bij de ‘Frankfurter-schule’ (een groep die die laatste trouwens nooit gekend heeft) in de jaren ‘30 zelfs een strak plan uitgedacht de ‘samenleving van binnen uit te hollen’ en een dictatuur van de politieke correctheid te installeren.

‘Net zoals Goebbels en zijn nazi’s,’ stelt Cliteur, is ‘de essentie van de cultuurmarxistische strategie het ondermijnen van instituten door ze van binnenuit uit te hollen,’ met ‘een Trojaanse paarden-tactiek.’ Gramsci, zo stelt hij, was de eerste om te ‘streven naar macht door geweldloze ondermijning van democratische instituties,’ een vorm van ‘ideologische oorlogsvoering tegen die instituties door deze van binnenuit te monopoliseren.’

‘Links voelt zich nu uitgedaagd door de term “cultuurmarxisme”,’ stelt Cliteur ‘omdat men het onaangename gevoel krijgt dat men ontmaskerd wordt. Het ging nou net zo lekker, we kregen de media in handen, de universiteiten en de kranten — en nu wordt er op ons gelet.’

Cliteurs passages bieden een mooie samenvatting van een door hem geredigeerd boek, Cultuurmarxisme: er waart een spook door Europa, uitgegeven bij Aspekt. ‘Er waart een spook door het Westen,’ vertelt ons de achterflap, ‘niet dat van het communisme, maar van het cultuurmarxisme.’ Marxisten, zo stellen de auteurs, ‘hebben de preoccupatie met de materiële omstandigheden verlaten en zich gericht op de cultuur. De arbeider, “als troetelkind van linkse intellectuelen” heeft plaats gemaakt voor nieuwe verworpenen der aarde,’ wat ‘geleid heeft tot een soms absurde zoektocht naar “nieuwe zieligheid”.’ In zijn eigen artikel citeert Cliteur het boek Dangerous (2017) van alternatief-rechts boegbeeld Milo Yiannopoulos, die als voornaamste bron dient voor zijn stellingen. ‘Liberalen,’ zo stelt Cliteur, moeten op hun hoede zijn voor ‘cultuurmarxisten die in de praktijk bezig met het deconstrueren’ van de westerse beschaving.

Het is bevreemdend hoe zelfverklaarde intellectuelen in Cultuurmarxisme de meest basale academische regels aan hun laars lappen. Terwijl Nederlandse rechtenstudenten voor hun essays eerst een heuse bibliotheek moeten doorploegen, getroost Cliteur het zich in zijn hoofdstuk niet eens om ook maar één werk van Gramsci zelf te citeren (men hoopt terdege dat Cliteur zijn studenten voor dergelijke frats zou buizen (zakken voor een examen. svh) – anders zou het nog erger gesteld zijn met onze universiteiten). Als autoriteit citeert Cliteur in de plaats diezelfde Yiannopoulos, die Gramsci als uitvinder van datzelfde ‘cultuurmarxisme’ aanduidt.

https://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikel/2018/06/27/het-verwoeste-gebied-van-de-geest-over-cultuurmarxisme-van-paul-cliteur/ 

Meer over het verstandshuwelijk tussen hervormingsgezinden en reactionairen de volgende keer. 


Milo Yiannopoulos, Paul Cliteur's geestelijk vader.

https://www.gaystarnews.com/article/milo-yiannopoulos-ruined-life-mollie-tibbetts/



 

vrijdag 22 oktober 2021

Derk Sauer, Julian Assange, en De Andere Krant 2

Karel Beckman (rechts) met Jan van Gils en Elze van Hamelen bij Café Weltschmerz


Zaterdag 9 mei 2020 verkondigde de hoofdredacteur van De Andere Krant,  Karel Beckman, dat ‘in onze democratie het socialisme heeft gezegevierd over het liberalisme. De Broederschap heeft het gewonnen van De Vrijheid. Alle belangen ondergeschikt maken aan het beschermen van zwakkeren is per slot van rekening de ultieme socialistische gedachte,’ een dogma die een halve eeuw geleden bijzonder populair was onder neoliberale ideologen die fanatiek voorstander waren van het ontmantelen van de verzorgingsstaat en in het kader daarvan pleitten voor het dereguleren en privatiseren van de maatschappij. Beckman voegde in één adem aan zijn betoog toe dat ‘Wie het waagt om te suggereren dat bijvoorbeeld economische belangen ook mee zouden moeten wegen in de besluitvorming,’ onmiddellijk ‘wordt weggezet als ongevoelige egoïst.’ Als ultiem bewijs voor zijn leerstelling voerde de hoofdredacteur the one and only ‘Mark Rutte’ op, die, aldus Beckman:


niet voor niks, goedkeurend, in het parlement, begin april [zei]: ‘We zijn natuurlijk een land dat in de kern diep-socialistisch is.’


Het is allemaal niet gering voor iemand die nu als hoofdredacteur claimt ‘controversiële kwesties aan de orde te stellen’ en ook nog eens beweert een en ander ‘altijd goed onderbouwd, verifieerbaar, transparant en fair’ te doen. Desondanks gaat hij er blind vanuit dat de neoliberale politicus Rutte in dit geval plotseling de waarheid spreekt. En dat ‘het zover is gekomen, hoeft niet te verbazen,’ want, zo fabuleerde Beckman verder, ‘Gelijkheid en Broederschap stonden altijd al op gespannen voet met Vrijheid — en ze worden al heel lang als moreel superieur gezien aan Vrijheid.’ Kortom, voor de hoofdredacteur van De Andere Krant staat buiten kijf dat na vier decennia dereguleren, privatiseren, en outsourcen van arbeid, die de kloof tussen arm en rijk in het Westen almaar hebben vergroot ‘er geen misverstand over [kan] bestaan dat' in ons tijdsgewricht 'de Vrijheid voorwaardelijk is, ondergeschikt aan het “algemeen belang.”’ Zijn lezerspubliek moet hem op zijn woord geloven dat het ‘socialisme’ van de huidige neoliberale elite erop gericht is de rijkdom in het Westen ‘te herverdelen,’ en dat dit ‘impliceert dat ons democratische stelsel in de kern een socialistisch systeem is, en dat we het pad van het klassieke liberalisme, zoals dat ontstond in de 18e eeuw, definitief hebben verlaten,’ aangezien ‘Volgens de klassiek-liberale denkers uit de 18e en 19e eeuw de staat er [was] voor het individu, niet andersom. Om de individuele vrijheid van de burger te waarborgen, niet om het “algemeen belang” te dienen. Deze visie vind je bijvoorbeeld terug in de woorden van de Amerikaanse Onafhankelijkheidsverklaring:


‘Wij beschouwen deze waarheden als vanzelfsprekend: dat alle mensen als gelijken worden geschapen, dat zij door hun schepper met zekere onvervreemdbare rechten zijn begiftigd, dat zich daaronder bevinden het leven, de vrijheid en het nastreven van geluk.’

https://www.wyniasweek.nl/we-zijn-nu-allemaal-diep-socialistisch/ 


De meningen van de hoofdredacteur van De Andere Krant Beckman verschillen niet wezenlijk van die van een geprivilegieerde neoliberaal. Laat ik daarom beginnen met het citaat uit de Onafhankelijkheidsverklaring, geschreven door de latere president van de VS, Thomas Jefferson, die bij één van zijn slavinnen, Sally Hemmings, zes kinderen had verwekt, zoals via ‘a DNA analysis, commissioned in 1998 by Daniel P. Jordan, president of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation,’ wetenschappelijk is vastgesteld. Ook Beckman weet kennelijk niet dat:


Thomas Jefferson was... also a lifelong slave owner who held Sally Hemings and their children in bondage. Sally Hemings should be known today, not just as Jefferson’s concubine, but as an enslaved woman who — at the age of 16 —  negotiated with one of the most powerful men in the nation to improve her own condition and achieve freedom for her children.


Ondermeer dit feit leidde ertoe dat de bekende Amerikaanse stand-up comedian George Carlin ooit opmerkte dat de hele VS een ‘country is full of shit. In fact, this country was founded by a group of slave-owners who told us that all men are created equal.’ Kortom, het beroep dat de hoofdredacteur doet op de vermeende vrijzinnigheid van het liberalisme is gebaseerd op… ‘bullshit,’  oftewel ‘gelul.’ Bovendien wees de Amerikaanse geleerde Noam Chomsky erop dat:


racist doctrine developed in part as a concomitant of the colonial system, for fairly obvious reasons. And it is a fact that some leading empiricist philosophers were connected to the colonial system in their professional lives, and that racist attitudes were commonly advanced during this period by major philosophers, among others.


Chomsky wijst daarbij op de zeventiende eeuwse Engelse Verlichtingsfilosoof John Locke, op wiens opvattingen het huidige neoliberale denken gebaseerd is, en die ‘commented that “day-laborers and tradesmen, the spinsters and dairymaids” must be told what to believe: “The greatest part cannot know and therefore they must believe.”’ Over het stichtelijke werk van de andere grote Verlichtingsfilosoof, en moderne moralist, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) is bekend dat:


Today, justice and virtue admit no room for racism. And this makes the following quotes from Kant a little confounding:


‘The white race possesses all incentives and talents in itself... The race of Negroes can be educated, but only as slaves... The [indigenous] Americans cannot be educated, they care about nothing and are lazy.’


It's no coincidence that Kant wrote these notes in 1781, a time when European colonialism was in full flourish.


In the same year, British forces were fighting the French over territories in the West Indies, the Spanish were crushing Inca rebellions in Peru.


The first uprising against the British East India Company took place on the Indian subcontinent and English traders in the Caribbean Sea threw 142 Ghanaian slaves overboard in order to conserve supplies for the remainder of their human cargo.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-10/modern-philosophical-canon-has-always-been-pretty-whitewashed/11678314 


Dit uitgesproken racisme was inderdaad tijdens het expanderende Europese- en Amerikaanse kolonialisme geen ‘toeval’ omdat het vermoorden, verkrachten, verminken dan wel tot slaaf maken van ontelbare individuen met een andere huidskleur alleen mogelijk was door mensen van vlees en bloed allereerst ideologisch hun menselijkheid te ontnemen. Welswaar is dit een onaanvechtbaar truïsme, maar dat vandaag de dag de journalist Karel Beckman toch nog steeds een beroep doet op de ‘bullshit’ van het Verlichtingsliberalisme verraadt een levensgevaarlijke mentaliteit, zeker wanneer hij deze nonsens ook nog eens publiekelijk verspreidt via  de website Wynia’s Week van chef-redacteur Syp Wynia, meer dan twee decennia opiniemaker van het neoliberale weekblad Elsevier. Meer over dit slag opiniemakers de volgende keer. 


 

Caitlin Johnstone: A Nuclear State of Denial

  Caitlin Johnstone: A Nuclear State of Denial June 24, 2022 Nuclear Winter Recon.  (Paul Hocksenar, Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0) For younger pe...