Time to introduce the concept of Overton window:
On the political spectrum, there is the left-wing and the right-wing. Left being more progressive, while right being more conservative. The Overton window is where the ‘moderates’ or the ‘centrists’ are located. It is the range of ideas and policies that are accepted by a vast majority of the population.
'Overton Window’ involves using the commercial press to determine exactly what is or is not 'politically acceptable' to play a role, forcing politicians and their voters to remain 'within the permissible framework.’ Rarely does the population decide what should nevertheless be discussed. For example, at the beginning of 2019, American independent senator Bernie Sanders gave the following example: 'We have come a very, very long way in the American people now demanding legislation and concepts that just a few years ago were thought to be very radical.' The New York Times then noted with dismay under the headline 'How the Politically Unthinkable Can Become Mainstream’:
Rarely does the population determine what should nevertheless be open to discussion:
With the political landscape shifting in sometimes startling ways, what was once an obscure idea had gained broader relevance.
The mainstream press determines nowadays exactly what is or is not 'politically acceptable' to play a role in a democracy, forcing politicians and their voters to do the same, to remain 'within the permissible framework.’ Rarely does the population decide what should be discussed. For example, at the beginning of 2019, American independent senator Bernie Sanders gave the following example: 'We have come a very, very long way in the American people now demanding legislation and concepts that just a few years ago were thought to be very radical.' The York Times then noted with dismay under the headline 'How the Politically Unthinkable Can Become Mainstream’: ‘With the political landscape shifting in sometimes startling ways, what was once an obscure idea has gained broader relevance.’
It goes without saying that the establishment and its opinion-makers want to keep the Overton Window as small as possible, and are inclined to reject any new idea that threatens the existing status quo as ‘radical.' Hence the importance of the 'corporate press' to convince the public what is and is not an 'acceptable' topic of conversation.
Another example: in the 1960s and 1970s, when the Western population demanded all kinds of reforms, the policy-making elite became so afraid of the attack on its position of power that the influential Trilateral Commission strongly emphasized in its report The Crisis of Democracy (1975) that since citizens: ‘press for more action to meet the problems they have to face, they require more social control. At the same time, they resist any kind of social control that is associated with the hierarchical values they have learned to discard and reject. The problem may be worldwide.
Yet another example of the 'Overton Window' is based on one of the countless experiences I have had in half a century of journalism. In 1984, during the centenary of the Dutch Association of Journalists, a television discussion had been organized between what were then called left-wing and right-wing journalists. After a royal meal, the participants — including the so-called progressive editor-in-chief Martin van Amerongen, and the mouthpiece of the conservative establishment Jaap van Meekeren, plus me — were led towards the cameras. Just before we entered the parlour, Van Amerongen, who I had known for quite some time, took me aside to say: 'Stan, you're not going to say radical things, do you?’ a friendly instruction that I of course totally ignored during the recordings. Still, it proved the fear of mainstream journalists to criticize their colleagues in public, and breaking with the unwritten consensus. This mentality is one of the forms of self-censorship that all Western journalists know too well.
Wikipedia: as soon as someone crosses the Overton Window boundaries, all parties involved are forced to reveal their true colours, and that is precisely what the vast majority of my colleagues want to avoid because it then becomes clear what they have previously concealed. Central to the Overton Window is not only what one states, but above all what the journalist has been concealing for a long time. Every journalist is always confronted with the question of what is and is not negotiable. Those who do not adhere to this rule are first gently urged to follow the consensus, and if this does not change his or her attitude, they are marginalized and eventually thrown out. One of the most prominent Western investigative journalists, the world-famous American Seymour Hersh, was forced to publish his often revealing articles abroad. If there is one thing the corporate press hates, it is the so-called ‘controversial’ information that violates the boundaries of the Overton Window.
Wikipedia: Among other facts, Hersh has accused the Obama administration of lying about the events surrounding the death of Osama bin Laden and disputed the claim that the Assad regime used chemical weapons on civilians in the Syrian Civil War. Both assertions have stirred controversy…
Although it is well-known that this research journalist has reliable contacts within the American intelligence community critics have described Hersh as a conspiracy theorist, in particular for his rejection of official claims regarding the killing of Osama Bin Laden and his rejection that the Assad regime used chemical weapons on Syrian civilians.’
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh
Although the powerful are permanently involved in large scale ‘conspiracies,' as is evident from the illegal invasion of Iraq, the proven lies about Assad’s use of chemical weapons, the lie that the WTC7 building collapsed due to fire, the support of two successive Rutte cabinets for Sunni terrorists in Syria, etc., the commercial press continues to portray the concept of ‘conspiracy’ in a suspicious light, unless it concerns unproven plots by the Russians and Chinese. This is the only defence that the Western elites in politics and the press possess to conceal their own corruption. This is only becoming increasingly less successful, and therefore the credibility, as well as the turnover/circulation of the mainstream media, has drastically decreased this century. With the advent of the internet, the self-proclaimed ‘free press’ has lost its monopoly on reporting, and with it its grip on determining the truth. This has become problematic for the powers that be, as the ‘corporate press’ is involved everywhere in the West in the preparations for a war against Russia and China, by constantly demonizing these nuclear superpowers. In a totalitarian technocracy like that of the West, the elites do not tolerate contradiction. They determine the course, not the representatives of the people, who may only review the faits accompli’s that, once known, can only be sanctioned by parliament, but no longer substantially changed. An example: on July 11, 2020, the Haarlems Dagblad, owned by the Flemish Mediahuis since 2019, published an interview with the then 57-year-old Lieutenant Admiral Rob Bauer, Commander of the Armed Forces until April 15, 2021, and as such ‘producer of veterans.’ Bauer has been appointed chairman of the NATO Military Committee in June 2021. This institution represents the ‘highest military authority of NATO’ and 'is made up of the defence chiefs of all 26 member states. They meet as a group at least three times a year. The day-to-day work is carried out by permanent military representatives, usually three-star officials, at NATO Headquarters in Brussels. They meet one to four times in official and informal sessions to discuss, consult and act on matters of military importance. They always work in the interests of the Alliance, but at the same time represent their national views and positions.
According to NATO, the Military Committee ‘provides consensus-based military advice and translates political guidance into military directives.'
Even though the powerful are permanently involved in ‘conspiracies,’ as is evident from the illegal invasion of Iraq, the proven lies about Assad’s use of chemical weapons, the untruth that the WTC7 building collapsed due to fire, the support of two successive Rutte cabinets for Sunni terrorists in Syria, etc., the commercial press continues to portray the concept of ‘conspiracy’ in a suspicious light, unless it concerns unproven plots by the Russians and Chinese. This is the only defence that the Western elites in politics and the press have to conceal their own corruption. This is becoming increasingly less successful, and therefore the credibility, as well as the power of the mainstream media has drastically decreased this century. With the advent of the internet, the self-proclaimed ‘free press’ has lost its monopoly on reporting, and with it its grip on determining the truth. This has become nowadys problematic for the powers that be, as the ‘corporate press’ is involved everywhere in the West in the preparations for a war against Russia and China, by constantly criminalizing these nuclear superpowers. In a totalitarian functioning technocracy like that of the West, the elites do not tolerate contradiction. They determine the course, not the representatives of the people, who may only review the faits accompli’s that, once known, can only be sanctioned by parliament, but no longer substantially changed. An example: on July 11, 2020, the Haarlems Dagblad, owned by the Flemish Mediahuis since 2019, published an interview with the then 57-year-old Lieutenant Admiral Rob Bauer, Commander of the Armed Forces until April 15, 2021 and as such ‘producer of veterans.’ Bauer was appointed chairman of the NATO Military Committee in June 2021. This institution represents the ‘highest military authority of NATO’ and 'is made up of the defence chiefs of all 26 member states. They meet as a group at least three times a year. The day-to-day work is carried out by permanent military representatives, usually three-star officials, at NATO Headquarters in Brussels. They meet one to four times in official and informal sessions to discuss, consult and act on matters of military importance. They always work in the interests of the Alliance, but at the same time represent their national views and positions.'
According to NATO, the Military Committee ‘provides consensus-based military advice and translates political guidance into military directives.'
https://www.nato.int/ims/docu/mc-brochure-for-mccs-netherlands-07.pdf
Although this NATO information remains deliberately vague, given NATO’s aggressive past, it can be assumed that this ‘Committee’ will generally follow the policies of Washington and Wall Street with a certain corpse discipline. Well, Lieutenant Admiral Rob Bauer told the Haarlems Dagblad, on behalf of himself and NATO, that ‘Russia is the enemy again,’ a fact on which the Dutch parliament has not expressed itself. The ‘producer of veterans’ said that because of this enmity, ‘training has been taking place along the border with Russia since 2016.’ The until recently Commander of the Armed Forces went one step further by stating:
In fact, we are already at war, said Bauer. ‘Because every day we, the Netherlands, and all NATO countries, are attacked in cyberspace. Tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of attacks per day occur in the Netherlands, on industry, on government, on universities. Some by criminals and some by countries. And the two countries that clearly come to the fore according to the public annual reports of the intelligence services MIVD and the AIVD are Russia and China.’
States that are not out to conquer geographical terrain, but want to influence systems with this cyber war. Disabling the electricity grid, making sure that cash machines no longer work. Disrupting locks and bridges, the critical infrastructure. ‘You have to be very alert to that. The more that is connected to the internet, which is great, the more vulnerable we are.’
The intelligence and security service of the Ministry of Defence can determine whether countries or criminals are behind the attacks. ‘Attributing it, who you should attribute it to, that is difficult, especially because people try to erase their tracks. You don’t immediately end up in Moscow or Beijing at a computer. It goes via all kinds of routers and servers everywhere and nowhere in the world.’
Note the formulation of Bauer and the Haarlems Dagblad: first the newspaper states: ‘the Ministry of Defence can determine whether countries or criminals are behind the attacks.’ And then this is toned down by Bauer, because ‘attributing to whom you should attribute it is difficult, especially because people are trying to erase their tracks. It goes through all kinds of routers and servers everywhere and nowhere in the world.’ Given the major financial interests of the Western military-industrial complex, including NATO, the information from the intelligence services and security services of the NATO countries cannot be accepted as correct without further ado. Especially not because these services sell demonstrable lies. For example, according to American and British intelligence services, Saddam Hussein is said to have weapons of mass destruction. It was the collective scaremongering that led to the following appeal from the NRC on the day of the invasion, 20 March 2003: ‘Now that the war has started, President Bush and Prime Minister Blair must be supported. That support cannot remain stuck in verbal non-commitment. That means political support — and if necessary, military support.’ At the same time, the editors and editors-in-chief of the evening paper made it known that they doubted ‘the casus belli against Iraq’. In other words, the newspaper knew that this was a ‘war of aggression’, of which the judges during the Nuremberg Trials in 1946 had determined that ‘to initiate a war of aggression is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.’ Although the then editor-in-chief of NRC was a lawyer who knew that he was calling for the commission of a ‘supreme war crime’, he was of course never prosecuted for this gross violation of the law, let alone convicted. The reason is simple: the establishment needs the media to sell wars to the general public. The editors of NRC Handelsblad add another element to this, namely the Atlantic principle of the newspaper, based on a neoliberal and neoconservative ideology that, ironically enough, has frequently seriously violated the claimed ‘security of the world’. With this kind of brainwashed journalists, the Netherlands must enter the dark future.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten