SearchRecent comments
Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
reporting on the american wingnuttery.....Our political landscape is completely flooded by a massive tide of official propaganda. Therefore, it’s hardly surprising that the few visible points of surviving dissent are often found among those individuals who had previously represented the highest peaks of journalism and academic scholarship. Seymour Hersh falls into that category. With a Pulitzer Prize and five George Polk awards, Hersh certainly ranks as one of the most renowned reporters of the last half-century, known for breaking the stories of the My Lai Massacre, the Abu Ghraib prison, and other landmarks of investigative journalism.
BY RON UNZ
A few days ago, he dropped a bombshell perhaps as big as anything in his career, reporting the inside story of how the American government had destroyed the Nord Stream energy pipelines, conduits absolutely vital to the European economy. Not only were the attacks an act of war against Germany, one of our closest NATO allies, but the explosions probably produced the greatest peacetime destruction of civilian infrastructure in the history of the world, with the value of the $30 billion pipelines being far larger than the losses inflicted by the 9/11 attacks.
When the attacks occurred last September, a multitude of observers myself included noted that top Biden Administration officials had repeatedly threatened to eliminate the pipelines and then crowed when a series of mysterious underwater explosions accomplished that task.
Indeed, Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University reported that leading mainstream journalists had privately told him that everyone believed that America had been responsible although neither they nor their editors would ever publicly mention such a scenario. And when Sachs did so on Bloomberg TV, his interview was cut short and he was quickly yanked off the air.
But while there had been a great deal of informed speculation, Hersh has now provided a detailed narrative of exactly what transpired, including the allegation that the Biden Administration had employed questionable legalisms to avoid informing our Congressional Intelligence committees of the operation as was required by law. If Hersh is correct, our top government leaders may be in serious legal jeopardy. Yet one of our greatest journalists was forced to break that enormous story with sweeping international implications on his own Substack platform rather than in the headlines of a top newspaper or magazine. After five decades, the arc of Hersh’s career has retraced its steps, and he has returned to his roots as the fiercely independent journalist who won a Pulitzer Prize covering the Vietnam War. Glenn Greenwald, himself a formidable investigative journalist, has similarly been pushed out of the mainstream media, but his new nightly newscast System Update had become an important project of the Rumble platform, often drawing 100,000 or more views. Appropriately enough, he devoted a recent program to discussing the deep implications of Hersh’s exile from mainstream journalism and the ignorant attacks launched against him by junior reporters whose entire careers have been spent regurgitating official government propaganda. Hersh’s situation is shocking but hardly unique. Over the last year, the mainstream and much of the alternative media have adopted near-lockstep positions on the Russia-Ukraine war, with the range of allowed opinions probably being narrower and more uniform than had even been the case in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks two decades earlier. Only the most determined and courageous voices have been able to stand against the force of this ideological hurricane. Consider that for nearly twelve months the phrase “Russia’s unprovoked invasion” has been repeated in almost every media story and news outlet although that description is absolutely contrary to the facts. As I wrote soon after the war began: Although FoxNews has become one of the outlets most rabidly hostile to Russia, a recent interview with one of their regular guests provided a very different perspective. Col. Douglas Macgregor had been a former top Pentagon advisor and he forcefully explained that America had spent nearly fifteen years ignoring Putin’s endless warnings that he would not tolerate NATO membership for Ukraine, nor the deployment of strategic missiles on his border. Our government had paid no heed to his explicit red-lines, so Putin was finally compelled to act, resulting in the current calamity. Macgregor had been a finalist to succeed John Bolton as National Security Advisor and a guest on FoxNews some 60 times, but he immediately disappeared from the broadcast media. Prof. John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, one of our most distinguished political scientists, had spent many years making exactly these same points and blaming America and NATO for the simmering Ukraine crisis, but his warnings had been totally ignored by our political leadership and media. His hour-long lecture explaining these unpleasant realities had quietly sat on Youtube for six years, attracting relatively little attention, but then suddenly exploded in popularity over the last few weeks as the conflict unfolded, and has now reached a worldwide audience of over 17 million. His other Youtube lectures, some quite recent, have been watched by additional millions.
Mearsheimer’s lengthy explanation of the origins of the Ukraine war has now accumulated 28 million views, quite possibly more than any academic lecture in the history of the Internet. But almost every media outlet and mainstream journalist covering the topic has completely ignored all of the important facts he presents. During his long and distinguished career at the CIA, former analyst Ray McGovern had run the Soviet Policy Branch and also served as the Presidential Briefer, so under different circumstances he or someone like him would would currently be advising President Joe Biden. Instead, a few days ago he joined Mearsheimer in presenting his views in a video discussion hosted by the Committee for the Republic. Both leading experts agreed that Putin had been pushed beyond all reasonable limits, provoking the invasion.
McGovern and a couple of other national security experts were interviewed on RTregarding Hersh’s story. One of them mentioned a German source he knew who had allegedly confirmed many of the details.
Several days ago I disputed the circumstances of Russia’s Ukraine war with a couple of establishmentarian commenters on my own website. I emphasized that my understanding of the origins of the conflict and its current circumstances was drawn from such figures such as Mearsheimer, Sachs, Macgregor, and McGovern, individuals who had built their reputations over decades but were now excluded from the mainstream media for their dissenting views. I pointed out that very high-ranking academics or other experts have too much self-respect to comply with a mindless 99% MSM narrative that they firmly believe to be false, and they also possess considerable confidence in their own contrary analysis. So I listen carefully to their views and if these make sense to me, I think they might be correct. Meanwhile, the 99% of the views I see on the other side can easily be explained by media herd-mentality and careerist presssures. All of those latter voices are well aware they that they may be promoted if they effectively advocate the official party line but lose their jobs if they fail to do so. I had noticed exactly that same pattern prior to the disastrous Iraq War a couple of decades ago. In the patriotic fervor following the 9/11 attacks, few national media figures dared challenge the plans and proposals of the Bush Administration, with Paul Krugman’s column at the Times being the rare exception; expressing “unpatriotic sentiments” as very broadly defined could severely impact a career. This was especially true of the electronic media, with its vastly greater reach and therefore subject to more extreme pressure. During 2002 and 2003, it was very uncommon to find an Iraq War naysayer anywhere on network television or among the fledgling cable alternatives, and even MSNBC, the least popular and most liberal of the latter soon began a sharp ideological crackdown. For decades, Phil Donahue had pioneered the daytime television talk show, and in 2002 he revived it to high ratings on MSNBC, but in early 2003 his show was canceled, with a leaked memo indicated that his opposition to the looming war was the cause. Conservative Pat Buchanan and liberal Bill Press, both Iraq War critics, hosted a top-rated debate show on the same network, allowing them to spar with their more pro-Bush opponents, but it too was cancelled for similar reasons. If the cable network’s most famous hosts and highest rated programs were subject to summary termination, lesser ranking personalities surely drew the appropriate conclusions about the risks of crossing particular ideological lines. My old friend Bill Odom, the three-star general who ran the NSA for Ronald Reagan and possessed among the strongest national security credentials in DC was similarly blacklisted from the media for his opposition to the Iraq War. Numerous other prominent media voices were “disappeared” around the same time, and even after Iraq became universally recognized as an enormous disaster, most of them never regained their perches.
A few months before the outbreak of the Ukraine war, I produced a lengthy compendium of such similar cases over the last few decades, examples of scholarly and journalistic giants who had correctly challenged the official narrative on important issues and suffered severe retribution as a consequence, sometimes being purged from public life.
At this moment, the facts are not yet settled regarding Seymour Hersh’s journalistic account, and perhaps his story will prove to have been mistaken. But given the past pattern of similar examples that I have carefully investigated, I think there is an excellent chance that his narrative will turn out to be large correct.
From the first moment, there had been overwhelmingly strong circumstantial evidence that the American government had played a crucial role in the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, an act of colossal recklessness. Yet although one of our greatest journalists has now provided the exact alleged details of what actually happened, our entire mainstream media has greeted that story with a complete wall of silence.
Given this reality, I am hardly surprised that for the last three years my own analysis of the origins of Covid has received exactly the same silence. Once again, there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that the global Covid outbreak was the blowback from a botched biowarfare attack against China (and Iran), an act of absolutely colossal recklessness that has now killed over a million Americans. Perhaps at some point, the full details will come out, but until then I would recommend the series of articles I have published since April 2020, along with several podcast interviews that effectively summarize the material.
Kevin Barrett, FFWN • February 16, 2022 • 15m
READ MORE: https://www.unz.com/runz/standing-upright-amid-a-sea-of-lies/
|
User login |
duping the public.......
BY Eric Zuesse
The vast majority of Russians know about the war in Ukraine many important facts that Western audiences don’t know and have never been informed of. Almost all Russians know the history of that war’s start in February 2014, its start that’s shown with actual video clips of its start, and which 10-minute video of its start became first posted to youtube on 12 March 2014. (This 10-minute video is entirely true, and it fairly represents the key videoed events that are summarily shown and described in it, such as this event, in which Obama’s agent instructs America’s Ambassador in Ukraine whom to get appointed to run the post-coup-government, and such as this event, in which the EU foreign-relations chief first learns, on 26 February 2014, that it had been a coup and not anything democratic.) So: Russians see this war in Ukraine as a war to undo an American coup that had culminated during 20-27 February 2014 that the EU didn’t even know about until 26 February 2014 but that the EU then accepted and tried to get as much out of it as they could. This U.S. coup threatens Russians because if America gets to post its missiles in Ukraine, on Russia’s border only 300 miles away from Moscow, then America will have checkmated Russia, by being able then to decapitate Russia’s central command within only five minutes, which would be far too quick for Russia to be able to launch its retaliatory weapons; and a Russian surrender to the U.S. Government would then be assured. Russians don’t find that prospect tolerable, at all; so, they support, nearly by 100%, Russia’s military operation that started in Ukraine on 24 February 2022.
On 6 February 2023, and also written-up in an online article in Russia two days later, a Russian political scientist explained why Russia’s Government will either win this war militarily in the correct way, or else lose it ultimately if Russia’s Government fails to do that — to win it correctly. Following here is the article (translated into English) that they posted online, in which he explains why and how this is so — why Russia needs to drive America’s control over Ukraine, which started in that coup, entirely out of all of Ukraine, and not leave any part of Ukraine remaining under the control of the U.S. Government:
——
https://tsargrad.tv/articles/ssha-gotovy-sdat-ukrainu-no-ne-vsju-rossiju-vedut-v-lovushku_719575 (Russian original)
https://archive.is/TaW3L (archive of it)
https://tsargrad-tv.translate.goog/articles/ssha-gotovy-sdat-ukrainu-no-ne-vsju-rossiju-vedut-v-lovushku
8 February 2023
“THE UNITED STATES IS READY TO SURRENDER UKRAINE, BUT NOT ALL OF IT: RUSSIA IS BEING LED INTO A TRAP”
The US is ready to surrender Ukraine, but not all of it. Leonid Krutakov is sure that the special operation must be brought to its logical conclusion. In his opinion [aired on 6 February 2023], Russia is being led into a trap. The West may make concessions, but the deal risks turning into a new time bomb for Moscow.
The Western press suddenly began to disperse decadent moods regarding the prospects for the development of the conflict in Ukraine, the host of the “First Russian” Nikita Komarov drew attention on the air of the program “Tsargrad. Main” .
According to the German newspaper Die Welt, Kyiv is practically doomed — its chances of winning tend to zero. The article explains that Ukrainian troops will soon run the risk of being left with virtually no weapons and fighters. Supplies from the US and the EU, as well as the help of mercenaries, can only slightly and for a short time alleviate the situation.
In this regard, the publication expects that parts of the Armed Forces of Ukraine will soon be forced to leave Bakhmut — which is of great strategic importance — due to serious losses.
The host of the “First Russian” program pointed out that such an assessment by Die Welt is surprisingly true, but there is some kind of catch in such defiantly decadent rhetoric. Political scientist Leonid Krutakov , an associate professor at the Financial University under the Government of Russia, agreed with him live.
The West is testing the soil
The interlocutor of Tsargrad did not rule out that such publications in Europe are simply preparing public opinion for the opening of the next deliveries of heavy weapons to Ukraine:
“However, one does not exclude the other [possibility]. Probably, in the US and the EU they want, on the one hand, to mislead us, and on the other hand, to use at least some truthful information, because you cannot build propaganda or information policy solely on outright lies.”
THE WEST RECOGNIZES THE INEVITABILITY OF KYIV’S DEFEAT IN THE CONFLICT. BUT LEONID KRUTAKOV READ THIS CONFESSION BETWEEN THE LINES. PHOTO: TSARGRAD
Can’t relieve pressure
In any case, it is important for Russia not to lose vigilance and to develop the pace of the offensive. It must be remembered that if Moscow today gives up and turns back, then the fake about “Russian aggression” will be fixed in the minds of people forever, since history is written by the winner.
“‘If the special operation does not end in Kiev with a process of denationalization, a real tribunal similar to the Nuremberg one – with documents, with proof of guilt, with a historic verdict – then the SVO [Special Military Operation] will become an alleged crime of Russia in the history of Western thought,’ the expert explained.”
That is, the current Russophobic rhetoric will no longer be just a temporary political tool, but a legalized “truth” that will be instilled in new generations under the guise of history.
“And Russia will turn into a kind of Mordor. Gradually, of course, they will begin to shake hands with us again, as it was in the Soviet period, but they will still continue to consider us animals, the political scientist concluded.”
Moscow is preparing [against] a new trap
At the same time, within the framework of the SVO, it is necessary not only to liberate another part of the territory, but also to finally demolish the Kiev regime. If the nationalist leadership remains, Washington will certainly take advantage of this and prepare a new time bomb for Russia.
“‘It is fundamentally important for the West to preserve at least some remnant of Ukraine. Because you need a state that will lay claim to Russian territories. And we need such a political institution, that abscess that will disperse Russophobia around the world,’ Krutakov explained.”
So, on the basis of the Bandera [Ukrainian nazi] movement, a whole state was raised, completely based on the principle of “Anti-Russia”. It can hardly be expected that the United States will abandon this project.
At the same time, they are ready to sacrifice part of the territories controlled by Kiev – to give 20, 30 or even 40 percent. The fact is that such an alignment, in a certain sense, plays into the hands of the American authorities.
“Now one can only imagine with horror what kind of hatred for Russia they will instill in people who remain on a piece of Ukraine,” the interlocutor of Tsargrad emphasized.
More about the political background of the conflict – in the video version of the program “Tsargrad. Main”.
——
Krutakov’s basic argument is that unless Russia removes U.S.-Government control over every part of Ukraine, Washington will win this war, by means of propaganda, if not by means of placing its missiles only 5 minutes away from Moscow. This argument is now public in the Russian-language media-space. I am now submitting it to all Western news-media, in order to give them the opportunity to present it to Western audiences too.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.......
READ MORE:
https://theduran.com/how-russians-view-the-war-in-ukraine/
READ FROM TOP.
FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....