Eva
Bartlett's border crossing journalism showed at long last the people’s
perspective of the Syrian war against terrorism. Bartlett talks figures
and proportions, and expands your desk research with facts that she
documented as a witness on site. Her stark observations have upset an
entire media industry. But she engages in dialogue, and she documents
her observations in detail; a stress test for integrity and coherence.
Bartlett is outspoken about social injustice and inaccurate media. Such
engagement and candor can be seen as a bonus. An heretic in journalism
will be challenged and has to work harder. Taking position means you
invite the scrutiny of critics. The transparency of partisanship helps
any curious critic to scale the spectrum of sources, viewpoints and
stakeholders and allow a comparison of narratives to more effectively find consistency (or facts) and inconsistency /falsehoods.
Bartlett
has exposed a tradition of lazy research and poor journalism in
prominent mainstream-media of the 21st century, the Neo-liberal era. But
now she seems to be subjected to a smear campaign for lack of a better
argument. Observe her fact finding ability and analysis, while she
politely shatters a bastion of pretentiousness:
Compare
this well-documented single engine press mosquito to a corporate
newscaster from CNN where fact-checking is often entirely absent, as the
news is served as it was delivered by media affiliates or special
interest groups - often through an uneducated mouthpiece or an
establishment associate. (Who knew for instance Mrs. Amanpour married a
US State dept. PR-professional? That Anderson Cooper was trained by the
CIA? That Mr. (big media) Murdoch himself (and Dick Cheney, …) has a
stake in occupied Golan - co-owning mining firm Genie.) Who’d thought state agencies took such a deceptive role.)
Mind you, a free press is also free to ignore the truth. A free market
does not guarantee a balanced flow of relevant information in public
channels especially if the public is the product - for the advertisers.
Our corporate media have too often parroted the War party (Neocons), and
their afilliates in the military-industrial complex. That is exactly
how the Iraq war could develop and be waged on faulty intelligence
(…according to regretful WashPo and CBS journalists, 2004).
Unfortunately that failure is not a thing of the past.
Bartlett’s
reports of Syria have countered a media narrative that has been leaning
on assumptions for lack of reliable source contacts nor Western
journalists on-site. (As their insurance won’t cover that.) Her
determination to go off-limits to find the facts, and her measured,
nuanced choice of words seem to reveal a passion for truth.
What is
credible or not credible was explained by Eva Bartlett herself when she
scoured a media colleague for ‘'Building conclusions on allegations,
citing dubious and unknown sources, time and again… One, two times
maybe, but every time? Not credible."
I’d
say, hats off for a courageous investigator who has shed a light on an
issue littered with deception, perhaps as complex as the Vietnam war was
in the time of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon papers (1971).
Eva
Bartlett's border crossing journalism showed at long last the people’s
perspective of the Syrian war against terrorism. Bartlett talks figures
and proportions, and expands your desk research with facts that she
documented as a witness on site. Her stark observations have upset an
entire media industry. But she engages in dialogue, and she documents
her observations in detail; a stress test for integrity and coherence.
Bartlett is outspoken about social injustice and inaccurate media. Her
engagement and candor can be seen as a bonus. An heretic partisan will
be challenged and has to work harder. Taking position means you welcome
the scrutiny of critics and it enables a reader to find opposition and
do more effective fact checking. Bartlett has exposed a tradition of
lazy research and poor journalism in prominent mainstream-media, but now
she seems to be subjected to a smear campaign for lack of a better
argument. Observe her fact finding ability and analysis, while she
politely shatters a bastion of pretentiousness.
Compare
this well-documented single engine press mosquito to a corporate
newscaster from CNN where fact-checking is often entirely absent, as the
news is served as it was delivered by media affiliates or special
interest groups - often through an uneducated mouthpiece or an
establishment associate. (Who knew for instance Mrs. Amanpour’s married a
government PR-man? That Anderson Cooper was affiliated to the CIA? That
Murdoch himself has a stake in occupied Golan - co-owning mining firm Genie. Who’d thought state agencies took a deceptive role qr.ae/TUTNE7.)
Mind you, a free press is also free to ignore the truth. A free market
does not guarantee a balanced flow of relevant information in public
channels especially if the public is the product. Our corporate media
have too often parotted the War party (Neocons), and their co-owners in
the military-industrial complex. That is how the Iraq war could be waged
on faulty intelligence, according to regretful WashPo and CBS
journalists (2004). And that apparently is not a thing of the past.
Bartlett’s
on-site reports have countered a media narrative that has been leaning
on assumptions. Her determination to go off-limits to find the facts,
and her measured, nuanced choice of words seem to reveal a passion for
truth. What is credible or not credible was explained by Bartlett
herself when she scoured a media colleague for ‘'Building conclusions
on allegations citing dubious and unknown sources, time and again..
One, two times maybe, but every time? Not Credible."
I’d
say, hats off for a courageous investigator who has shed a light on an
issue littered with deception, perhaps as complex as the Vietnam war was
in the time of ‘the Pentagon papers’ (1971).
The
history of the US is quite unique. It stretches more than two centuries
of unabated expansion by conquest and annexation. First it spanned the
continent from East to West, then it crossed the oceans. US Military bases are now established in 80 or more countries of 195 countries total. (Politifact: 130)
The US turned from a militarist approach (Hawai 1893, Philippines,
1899, …) to a neo-colonial mode after 1945 that creates vassal states friendly to
its corporate economic demands not just by gunboat diplomacy or invasion
but increasingly by gray- and black operations - operations like regime
change and by synthetic revolt (the ‘midwifed color revolutions'), strategies of tension and destabilization using false
flags and pseudo-gangs, bribe-or-blackmail
operations (see Jeremy Perkins) and social engineering / assassination.
As
if organized naturally or by necessity, this 'hard power' is balanced
like arms of a tweezer, by a ‘soft power’; the industry and institutions
that mold the public mind to suit its pragmatism and long term goals,
by indoctrination and psychological operations. This power is
transmitted to the public in large part through agents in the
established media, and media (cross-)ownership. Notably it employs
(particularly in issues of State or foreign affairs) the inconspicuous
propaganda of 'repressive tolerance' administered by a conformist bias
media management, public gatekeepers (agents) and the formal or informal
requests and guidelines (D-notices) issued by state security, that are
to procure 'strategic omission', half-truth, distortion, distraction,
repetition, meme- and myth building. The general strategy is to frame
issues in ways that (taboo-) shrink the acceptable spectrum of public
debate,
while maximizing the charge and abundance of the debate - a case for
group psychology that leads to perceived correctness, and conformity to the
narrative preferred by one particular social group
(the corporate class) that is otherwise known as ignorance engineering or 'artificial stupidity' - a benchmark for differential intelligence.
The art of soft power has been pioneered by Edward Bernays (aka.
the father of ‘Public Relations’) and others like Walter Lippmann
(writer / inventor of 'the stereotype', and memes like ‘the cold war’),
from about a century ago and has been developed over time. Dr. Jaques
Ellul presented an interesting review and warning with a French
perspective in the book ‘Propaganda’ (1953) - about ‘myth built on
factoids disseminated in education and entertainment’.
The
US recovered from the depression of the twenties during WW2, as the
result of Government spending. After WW2 it did not reforge cannons into
plowshares. Instead, the US economy turned its business model to one of global conquest and war.
As early as 1939 a secret study had been made that advised (to David
Rockefeller and the CFR) of how to prepare to enter the post-war era and
replace the European empires that would fall as the result of
WW2 without the colonizer appearance. This endeavor of the corporate
state was to be wrapped in its own flag as a banner of international
benevolence: 'democracy, justice and freedom' (William F Engdahl), plus a stretched perception of liberal virtues. That faith has since WW2 materialized in a minority of cases.
Who
would have thought that the US has been involved in four out of five
armed conflicts since WW2? (252 total) Its wars destroyed the lives of
tens of millions of people (not counting the suffering and disruption) -
a higher toll than other conflicts combined. Has that come from its
benevolence, policing the world? Not likely. The next working day after
the death of president Kennedy, the Pentagon’s logistics department
received a tenfold war plan (projecting 57 000 veteran casualties) to
replace JFK’'s plans for retreat. This as well as Eisenhower's warning
of the emerging military industrial complex (MIC), suggests that other
people than diplomats and politicians dictate US foreign policy in a
coherent way, like a Deep State / shadow government. This millennium has
seen another astute policy disruption in 2001, prior to the
regime-changes and destabilization of large regions around Europe as
foretold in Pentagon’s (2001) plan to take down ‘seven countries in five
years’ leaked by General Clark (2007).
During
the past decades the US military and State security institutions (in
tandem with some US Corporations and foreign allies) have supported and
organized the emergence of failed states, burdened states and regime
changed states in a rim of countries around Europe and Israel (think of
Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, Egypt etc). Involved were agents, local
affiliates, NGO’s, billionaire funds (philanthropy), ultra-nationals and
proxy mercenary armies like AlQaeda, Isis, some Neo-Nazi’s (extremist)
out of sight of the media lens.
Who is aware that a ‘'belt’' of US
foreign bases encircles China, Russia and Iran. There are over 800 such
bases worldwide. Who recalls that the US tore up the cornerstone of
NATO’s security infrastructure - the ABM treaty. (December 13, 2001) No
discussion! Offers to wield a new European security structure’, one that
was verifiable by both sides, were scoffed at by Nato throughout the new millennium.
General Clark 'a policy coup sept 2001'
These
are not speculations, these are secrets only for those waking up to
these taboos. Not for Washington insiders and old school investigators
like Stephen Cohen, Paul C Roberts, Eric Zuesse, Michael Chossudovski,
Seymour Hersh (exposed MiLai, Abugraib), Chris Hedges (ex NYT), John
Pilger (ex Guardian) Karel van Wolferen (ex-NRC), Kees van der Pijl (University of Sussex), still visible online (sites like OffGuardian) and alt channels - like Really Graceful (YT). Long lists of suggestions: unz.co | criticalthink.
Who is aware of these facts? Not too many people. That is soft power protecting hard power from disobedience. CIA directors Casey and Colby both made explicit statements to this effect, as have various insiders like J E Hoover (FBI) and William Blum. They confirm that the content of Western media is colored by the State, and truth is of the least concern. A recent book, ‘Journalists for hire’ by the retired German Publisher Ulfkotte exposed behind the scenes soft power dominance and some of its excess in journalism.
Issues
as the above may not have been mentioned in your news feed, for obvious
reasons. Perhaps once or twice, or not in context. But strikingly,
there is ample airtime for harmless diversions, opinions and speculative
estimations etc on which we build fact-free conclusions that stir anger
or fear. Day after day, like gospel in secular world this propaganda in
camouflage (molded for effectiveness) saturates our senses and keeps us
occupied, aroused or opinionated. It effectively creates conformity and
action throughout society, and it foots the bill of the war machine and
a financial cabal while it has brought WW3 on the horizon. Through a
process resembling selective breeding in a cultured bubble the best
indoctrinated people have become media managers themselves and with them
a political class, the decision makers. Educated people belong to the
most indoctrinated class, prone to a paralysis of reason. With terms
like ‘creative destruction’ and ‘protecting jobs’ one can address them
on television about the murder, destruction and dispossession of another
society for war profit (media clip) without stirring the slightest uproar - as if we have entered a state of group psychosis, the pride of 'perception management'.
Interventions
by the US tend to be heavy-handed. Nonetheless their objectives are notoriously
light-headed. Were there any WMD’s in Iraq? Was the regime installed in
Seoul in 1948 democratic? Were babies ‘thrown from incubators’ in Kuwait
in 1991? Was the Tonkin incident real? Did Gaddafi bomb his own people?
Did we contain the USSR, and prevent 'domino’s’ to fall (after
Vietnam)? Was security served by keeping NATO in full swing after the
Warsaw pact ended - and cheering crowds invited US economists to run
Russia for a decade? (until it brought Russian life expectancy down by eight years) Is a 'war on terror' realistic? …that is all to be debated, but as soft-power attributes such tools have been unrivaled.
The
US'
interventions are particularly noted for two traits: to be illegal and
ineffective. Nonetheless, they are positively effective for finance and
corporate
suppliers to government. These economic interests keep the
wheel spinning at the expense of the (largely ignorant) taxpayer by
unlimited financial access to
Congress. Omnipresent in circles of power, and throughout all parties,
is the war party - supremacists allergic to diplomacy (dead set against
Moscow-Berlin cooperation), never they saw a conflict they did not like.
Popular General Smedley Butler warned of this already
in ‘War is a Racket’ (1932).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skv4tYZM_VQ Webster Tarpley brings you up to speed on demonization, pseodo-gangs and false flags
In line with the (Neocon) Wolfowitz doctrine
(1992) the US accepts NO equals in international relations - no
partners. (vassals, despots or extremists will do) In promoting its
principles around the world while achieving the opposite, the US is in a
league of its own. It has destabilized, coerced, and controlled other
nations (except Israel) as it saw fit: 40 countries have been
regime-changed while it interfered in the elections of at least 80
countries since 1945. On balance is is safe to say that this has had a
less than constructive result for humanity.
[While
foreign peoples suffer its interventions, US war veterans commit
suicide at a remarkable rate (over 20 per day). Welfare is another casualty of the war machine. Poverty has reached nearly
every second US citizen while the middle class strugggles . Even life expectancy is declining
(to differ about ten years between social strata) and still most of the
discretionary spending is directed to the military, a tenfold spending
above any rival nation - and recently increased when ‘the joint
commanders attested to the house committee they could not win a WW3 ‘as
swiftly as desired’.]
But regardless of
this controversial militarism and its costs to civil society, the
ultimate goal may not be lost according to Neocons and their heartland
theory (which holds a promise of glory to the conqueror of the Eurasian
continent). So Washington's interference on multiple fronts can be seen
as a tip toe to global hegemony or as a ‘new world order’. The latter
has been the object all along of those seeking to abolish ‘sovereignty’,
organized since 1923 in the institute of the Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR) - a think-tank / politbureau under corporate patronage
that provides counsel, and policy advisers to the US government.
In
the New World Order 'economy and politics are integrated’ and ultimately brought
under a World Government for which the UN and the EU are prototypes. The scenario is well on its way according to
David Rockefeller(a goodread)
some time ago. The ultimate sole opponent of this NWO, when China and
Russia would be integrated (after Syria-Iran had fallen) would be the People.
In this plan, under planet wide surveillance, the general population
(unfit for self rule say pseudo-democrats the likes of David Hume)
is to be ‘protected from itself’ and to be governed (through the facade of state
institutions) by private corporations who themselves are to be
controlled ‘in feudal fashion‘ (literally, p. 324), by the ‘apex’ of a world financial system consisting of a patriarchy of private corporations. [Barack Obama once referred to that stealth bankers crusade as ‘thought leaders’ with a long term ‘investment’ - not to mention G H W Bush.]
This
NWO globalism actually seems to make progress in bringing various
social parties in the orbit of the oligarch patriarchs.
Political agendas are harmonized, original and charismatic thinkers with
a
positive agenda are marginalized and so are the indigenous people and
everyone who does not fit a preferred profile. (An Orwellian 1984) The
world’s cultures blend in a consumers mold. The new French president for
instance recognizes ‘no such thing as French culture’. The phone-tapped
president of (occupied) Germany, Angela Merkel, regularly aligns Europe
with Atlantic goals to the detriment of European trade or security.
Social and Economic policy in the EU, is a ‘democracy free zone’ as Yanis Varoufakis the Greek ex-minister of finance explained (TED talk).
'Tending the shop' is the preferred 'ideology-free' attitude today for
any EU president. While soft-power blurs the view, wars are waged at
will from a distance. Sovereignty can be sold off quietly to relieve
austerity-engineered poverty - 'poverty a neo-liberal business model that is to wipe the bankers' tears since 2008'.
How
has that come about? Shareholder capitalism in contrast to Adam Smith's liberalism has its roots in the late
19th century when ‘the corporation’ was elevated above the mortal individual by
judicial privileges and lenient taxes. (This happened at the initiative
of John D Rockefeller.) Before that, such corporate privileges were limited to projects dedicated for public benefit. This way and perhaps by the
financial weight of the acolytes of the Rhodes Trust (endowed with
spreading ‘the virtues of the British Empire’, later to be the virtues of capitalism itself) the Corporations have been able to grow
richer than countries. They now exert a major influence over the
political system of many countries. Still new laws creep up without clear justification
that increase that imbalance, and never a law is passed against banking
interests, even if it is patently detrimental to the economy - like the
audacious financing of bailouts (via government debt) by imposing
austerity on its victims.
While American corporations own half the wealth of the US, the US owns about half the wealth of the world. 147 corporations with particularily strong interconnections have accidentally been found to be capable to sway policy in a majority of global corporations. (like a mob)
A hidden structure in the madness shows through, in patterns and detail. The central bank, the Federal Reserve cannot be audited by Congress. (clip) Even its owners are a secret. It is not Federal except in name. In the exact words of its ex-president Alan Greenspan '…The FED is an independent agency. The FED,unlike any other agency of government …' 'Other'? While it is an independent agency? That contradicts with 'government'. In fact the FED is a cartel of private banks that has a money creation monopoly since 1913. (read: The Creature, this monopoly was granted because the majority of voters in Congress intended to regulate the bankers by a Federal System, not grant a monopoly.) The wordplay has been instrumental for its existence and it still is. It implies that the FED operates with finesse from behind the curtain of democracy, through the President, through Congress and their institutions. It creates business cycles and can set conditions suitable for war. (The FED enabled England and the US to continue the second half of WW so Germany’s offers for a truce could be dismissed.)
To a liberal US interventionist, International law is a hindrance, so we adhere to ‘international norms’
instead. A carpet of new US laws has emerged that obscure civil rights
and the constitution, while a control substructure is engineered (a ’turn-key tyranny’- in the words of Edward Snowden)
via budgets wrapped in acts and orders (such as the NDAA) and
clandestine operations that legislators are often not fully aware of.
[Similarly
in Europe, EU president Junker: 'We keep adding directives. And if not
contested, they are turned into law'. The moderator, the EU Parliament
is only a working council with no power to reverse laws, so National
governments are eroded, and this gradually leaves the citizen deprived of
sovereignty and any means to hold one accountable. - Sue Governance? That
is where the corporate friendly trade agreements come in to help spend more.]
Where
does it lead? A patriarch’s dream at the end of this road you can find
in detail in the biography of the Council on Foreign Relations, Tragedy and Hope,
by Dr. Caroll Quigley. The author, a mentor of Bill Clinton, himself
welcomed such a cultural revolution - albeit by a slow transition.
So yes. I’d say the United States is an empire - of the few.
“Too
often, we judge other groups by their worst examples - while judging
ourselves by our best intentions. And this has strained our bonds of
understanding and common purpose.” These insights from a
presidential speech writer (2003) depicts accurately how some parties are viewed consistently through the lens
of our established media - our dependent, industrial (single bias) media,
the lens we rely on for understanding the world. So it is helpful to
expand the range of news sources and perspectives beyond the usual. This
helps discern fact from fiction in politics and everyday life. To find
omissions in the mainstream narrative we need insights from beyond these
familiar institutions, beyond the Washington post and The Guardian,
beyond the mono culture we are immersed in with its dedicated
stereotypes, labels, myth and our learned social reflexes. You feel like we are in the ‘'wrong train’' …to an empire of illusion? That is right. But there are exits before destination, so fear not. It is time to wake your fellow traveler. West Wind
[To
find the facts that matter you probably need the widest array of
information. I tend to look for the full spectrum of opinion on an
issue, to find opposing voices and check for
background information and disinformation. Primary documents (unredacted material) and witness testimony with authentic details bring insight by comparison -
using detective logic. Online search is great and the comment box,
awesome!]
Eva Bartlett's border crossing journalism showed at long last the people’s perspective of the Syrian war against terrorism. Bartlett talks figures and proportions, and expands your desk research with facts that she documented as a witness on site. Her stark observations have upset an entire media industry. But she engages in dialogue, and she documents her observations in detail; a stress test for integrity and coherence. Bartlett is outspoken about social injustice and inaccurate media. Her engagement and candor can be seen as a bonus.
A heretic or partisan journalist will be challenged and has to work harder. Taking a position means you welcome the scrutiny of critics and it enables a reader to find opposition and do more effective fact checking. Bartlett has exposed a tradition of lazy research and poor journalism in prominent mainstream-media, but now she seems to be subjected to a smear campaign for lack of a better argument. Observe her fact finding ability and analysis, while she politely shatters a bastion of pretentiousness.
Compare this well-documented single engine press mosquito to a corporate newscaster from CNN where fact-checking is often entirely absent, as the news is served as it was delivered by media affiliates or special interest groups - often through an uneducated mouthpiece or an establishment associate. (Who knew for instance Mrs. Amanpour’s married a government PR-man? That Anderson Cooper was affiliated to the CIA? That Murdoch himself has a stake in occupied Golan - co-owning mining firm Genie. Who’d thought state agencies took a deceptive role qr.ae/TUTNE7.)
Mind you, a free press is free to ignore the truth. A free market does not guarantee a balanced and relevant flow of information to the public especially if the public is the product. Or when most media share the same (co-)owners. Our corporate media have often parrotted the War party (Neocons), and their co-owners in the military-industrial complex. That is how the Iraq war could be waged on faulty intelligence and little debate, according to regretful WashPo and CBS journalists (2004). That is not a thing of the past apparently.
Bartlett’s on-site reports have countered the prevailing media narrative which has been leaning on assumptions, hearsay and crafted myth. Her determination to go off-limits to document the facts, and her measured nuanced choice of words seem to reveal a passion for truth. What is credible or not credible was explained by Bartlett herself when she scoured a media colleague for ‘'Building conclusions on allegations citing dubious and unknown sources, time and again.. One, two times maybe, but every time? Not Credible."
I’d say, hats off for a courageous investigator who has turned on the light on an issue littered with deception, perhaps as complex as the Vietnam war was in the time of ‘the Pentagon papers’ (1971).
Kennis vermeerdert door het vergelijken van conflicterende inzichten. De taak van de politiek en de media zou moeten zijn om voor die kennisvermeerdering een optimaal, aantrekkelijk sociaal platform te bieden. Het beste komt naar boven in een sfeer van redelijkheid, humor en beschouwing. Om
alternatieve media-bronnen te delen èn te beoordelen op 'factfullness' en mijn indruk van integriteit te geven, ben ik op G+ ooit een
overzicht begonnen genaamd New News (een Westwind rubriek, sinds 2012). Een greep daaruit heb ik hieronder in een lijst gezet met een toelichting. Dit is bedoeld als mijn nieuwjaarsgroet, een hulpje om onze mythomane mediavoor te blijven zodat je niet ongemerkt van de werkelijkheid vervreemd. (wir haben es nicht gewusst) Want uitgerekend die gevestigde media met de mond vol over nepnieuws zijn zelf zo vaak de hof-leverancier ervan. Een veronderstelde fake-bubble op sociale media die in maart 2018 met censuur bestreden gaat worden (een spam-box was te geemancipeerd) bevat ook de 'wisdom of crowds' - een platte organisatie waar 'gesocialiseerde bijdehandjes' kennis kunnen delen en leren op niveau - dwz. met aandacht voor conflicterende inzichten.
'fake news, that's so 2017'
Geloof mij maar niet. Dat is de betere houding. Neem wat ik hier schijf in je op, maar neem niets zomaar aan. Ook niet van de krant. Reken er niet op dat de krant zal brengen 'wat u moet weten'. Misschien werkt de markt niet (meer) zo. Misschien ben je als lezer een product dat zoet gehouden wordt met uitgelezen nieuws. Waarom geen bespreking in de belangrijkste kranten van de Dutise bestseller 'Gekaufte Journalisten' over integriteit in de media, waarover ook journalist Hannson kan vertellen uit Deens perspectief, of presentatrice Janneke Monshouer over wat de NOS niet uitzond. Waarom niets in krant over datmediakartel dat Trump (de 'pie-piper' / Republikein) aan de nominatie hielp onder de regie van het Democraten team van Hillary. (...) Wie zou geloven dat de gedrukte media in Rusland (een 'dictatuur' nietwaar) voor een groot deel (~20%) in Westerse handen zijn. En dat ondanks de sancties tegen Rusland. Dit nav. de mogelijke verkiezings-beïnvloeding een onbewezen aantijging van een club die er geen moeite mee heft dat het zelf verkiezingen heeft beïnvloedt in 70 landen. (is dat nog volgen of is dat maken van nieuws) Wie zou denken dat groot-mediabezitter Murdoch zelf financiëel belang heeft bijvoorbeeld bij de chaos in Syrië waar zijn krant aan bijdraagt door de meningen van bewezen onbetrouwbare bronnen als feiten door het nieuws te mixen.
Geo-politiek volgt de media: De interventie inIrak (2003) was achteraf gezien mogelijk geworden dankzij een misleid, bang gemaakt publiek, door het ontbreken van kritische berichtgeving over valse rapporten van overheidsdiensten. In 2004 volgde een mea culpa van de NY-Times en NBC. Maar tijdens de interventie in Libië (2011) bleek opnieuw medeia misleiding de doorslaggevende 'enabler' van een humanitaire ramp. Rusland en China hadden die no-fly(-'U die')zone boven Lybië nog nèt gesanctioneerd (tot hun spijt) en daar ging een onafhankelijk land ten onder dat een welvaartsmodel en toeverlaat voor Afrika was). Verdraaien, en vertellen van de halve waarheid kan sindsdien als een gouden standaard beschouwd worden waar het gaat om Industriële belangen zoals de Navo in leven houden, en de doelstellingen van een oorlogspartij de zgn. Neoconservatieven die sinds 9/11 het State Dept domineren (dat gaat vnl om geopoitiek mbt. Syrië, Iran, Rusland, China). Toeval of niet, het NRC waar ik ooit graag voor gewerkt heb, heeft haar oude slogans helemaal afgedankt, NRC is niet meer ...'slijpsteen voor de geest'. Niet meer 'voor wie de nuance zoekt'. Noch 'wat u moet weten, níet wat u moet denken', nee. Blanco.
Alle
partijen in een conflict maken propaganda voor hun eigen gezichtspunt.
Propaganda kan uit leugens bestaan, maar even goed uit harde feiten, uit
ware beweringen.Het gaat er om hoe eenzijdig de berichtgeving is. Welke info wordt herhaald? Welke berichten worden weg gelaten?Door de sturing van de berichtgeving op frequentie en omissie schep je een wereldbeeld dat in jouw eigen voordeel is.Ze doen het in Beijing, in Moskou, in Washington en in Amsterdam.En bijna altijd te goeder trouw. Omdat ook het wereldbeeld van journalisten op die manier is ontstaan.Een
goedwillende burger - alleen de allerhoogste elites willen oorlog -
moet dus de media van beide partijen in een conflict tot zich nemen.Er zit echt niks anders op.
Ik stel dus voor, Denk voor alles zelf (niet uitbesteden) - en controléér. Recherchéér. Zoeken en Vinden is nooit eenvoudiger geweest. Volg zowel de berichten als de boodschappers. Klopt het verhaal? Hoe luidt het tegenverhaal. (Horen we dat wel.) Wie heeft hier belang bij. Wat is niet logisch? Hoe zorgvuldig is men. Wat zijn de argumenten / wat zijn de aannames. Wat is controversieel maar blijft onweersproken? (en waarom dan) Wie antwoord wie. Wat is de geschiedenis. Hoe is hun 'track record'... etc. 'Schuw geen komplot.' Denk als een rechercheur, realistisch. Denk als een Sherlock Holmes, als Clouzeau, miss Marple, Colombo of 'die Alte'. Machiavelli wees er op dat niets toevallig gebeurde in de politiek en dat er niets gebeurt tenzij er een gelegenheid was en een belang. Zeker, lang niet alles wordt in openbaarheid gepland, zoals een testament, een zakenplan, een verkiezingsstrategie, al die dingen en veel meer vallen dus onder de definitie van <> - elk plan in besloten kring.
Een nieuwe dimensie in besloten (komplot) informatie dient zich aan als onbetwiste feiten die door deskundigen zijn geopenbaard alsnog als door een onzichtbare hand geleid via verschillende media eensgezind zwijgend afwijzend, de-facto tot een (publiek) geheim terugkeert. Vol met weetjes en columns met meningen is onze krant. Waarheidsvinding is dungezaaid. Dat moeten we opnieuw leren appreciëren. Vrijwel ek bijwoord of kwalificatie is af te wijzen in een non-fictie stuk. Feiten, gebeurtenissen, mechanismen en logica eerst. Geen relaas meer aannemen dat steunt op labels,identiteit,
autoriteit, legende, gewoonte, horen zeggen, gezond verstand, en het hoge woord ...of de goede naam en de knappe kop zoals Richard Feinmann het zelf uitlegt in deze korte lezing over het vinden van wetenschappelijke waarheid, een mooie les die eigenlijk overal opgaat. (wetenschap is leuker met Feinmann, mijn ultieme natuurkundeleraar)
2018: facts first!
Maar, vraag je je af, kunnen onze vertrouwde media, van de Groene, NRC, Guardian tot de NYT of de 'WashPo', systematisch ons verstand tarten met bepaaalde misleiding en wegdraaien van belangrijke zaken? Is er dan geen competitie met alternatieve media die belangrijke zaken toch naar voren brengt, het kartel breekt en het groepsdenken tegengaat? Reikt 'de macht', de spin van oligarchen tot in de redactie? Controleer uzelve èn Webster Tarpley hier bijvoorbeeld (3:00 min) over iets dat men moet weten. Professor Cees Hamelink (en anderen) in 'waarom de media de waarheid niet vertellen' (lezing) hebben de mechanismen onderzocht. Klassiekers: manufacturing consent en coersion-free censorship (Chomsky en Herman - vijf-punts 'institutionele' propaganda, een studie uit de jaren tachtig). Ook niet in de media: de dynasty's raid on the press(Oscar Callaway, 1917) en de Staat's greep op media(Ulfkotte, Gekaufte Journalisten, 2015). Hier bijvoorbeeld een mooi, ietwat gekleurd overzicht en een actueel bericht hierover uit the Intercept (Glenn Greenwald).
Zoouden de mainstream media gezamelijk als een ideologisch kartel kunnen optreden, als één politiek pincet, een para-militaire voorhoede die geschiedenis schrijft? Zonder de mechanismen van de macht en de media een b'tje beter te leren kennen zal dit alles ongeloofwaardig lijken. Iedereen is vrij om te schrijven maar slechts de redacties, hun handlers en (meer en meer neoliberale) eigenaren bepalen natuurlijk wat er gedrukt wordt - niet van stukje tot stukje maar van algemeen beleid.
there is a system in the madness...
Je
dacht even dat Blendle een goed idee was, en dat viel tegen? GoogleNews is al een stukje aardiger en wat minder triviaal, èn gratis. Leuk (regionaal) nieuws. Maar op één been kun je niet staan.
Doe je voordeel met dit mandje alternatieve ('alt') media! Hier heb ik (nog) geen fake tussen gevonden. Maar wetenschap is nooit af. Media die onafhankelijk en kritisch staan tov. de macht / de 'powers that be' zijn hier bij, herkenbaar aan een ruimer spectrum aan informatie en opvattingen dan je vindt in de MSM - de mainstream media, en onafhankelijk van de zgn. 'preferred narrative' (veiligheidsdiensten schrijven er aan mee), en de over-bekende invalshoeken (die voor u belangrijke aspecten kunnen overschaduwen) is dit
misschien wel 'the best of Fake News'!
Opgepast want deze 'msm-ontwenningskiosk' (hieronder) gaat niet om een bepaalde méning, een moraal of politieke kleur maar om allerlei bronnen die Feiten èn Perspectieven brengen die onze 'repressief-tolerante' media doorgaans negeren. (...ja ok mijn voorkeur 'n beetje vooraan), maar die onmisbare ingedienten hebben om bijvoorbeeld de mechanismen van de macht te begrijpen.
Heel makkelijk proeflezen wordt het
als je alle onderstaande alternatieve links kunt openen in tabs (in één browservenster) met 'open all in tabs' (of zo), zo dat je kan bladeren als in een kiosk. Deze waaier van MSM- alternatieven, is Uw Eerste Hulp bij desoriëntering, is de begaanbare korte weg uit die
echokamer van onze gevestigde (neo-liberaal) uitgekochte media bubble, dat psychisch laboratorium waar de grenzen aan het waarnemenen en begrijpen systematisch worden overschreden. Perception Management, 'Ignorance Engineering', de Culturele Deprivatie, Social Engineering ...het is een vak. De bescheiden beginslen van 'propaganda en ppublic relations al lang voorbij. De historie ervan gaat terug tot de prille dagen van 'manufacturing consent' (1918) door Lipmann en Bernays en de uitvinding van 'Government by Journalism' door de lucide bevlogen media innovator William T Stead die zijn inventiviteit deelde met de Milner groep en Randolph Hearst en met Titanic verdween.
off-guardianechte concrurentie op msm, is bijna uitsluitend in de marge
noviniwekelijks, dagelijks, geopolitiek onderzoek en reportage
Ook anderen hebben zoals ik hier, bronnen verzameld om u langs de eerste klippen, desinformatie en valse profeten op weg te helpen op onbekend terrein, louter om al die leuke, respectable en onafhankelijke maar onbekende dus onbeminde stemmen wat beter toegankelijk te maken. Alt source META list / lijsten:
boublogvan mr dr Boudine Berkenbosch, wat klopt dat er niet klopt
socialeDatabankwat nog immer niet klopt (Nederland) van drs R Brockhus
Internationaal news - views regelmatig
21stcenturywire US / UK daily news and commentary, rejects the left/ right paradigmabout
Off-Guardian (uk) repliek en nieuws (Vaska Tumir, ...)'because facts really should be sacred' Medium (us) Happy go lucky independent essay-ists Fort-russ (ru) Daily with the syncretical (reconciliating) view on the world about
RT.com een Russische BCC-worldnews and views with sane (but loud) Peter Lavelle, passionate Abby Martin, cynical Larry King, keen Sophie Sjevernadze, brilliant Max Keiser.'question more' Newsbud.com (ja) whistleblower Sybil Edmunds (onthulde 9/11 State dept collusion), met oa Corbett, news - views. about James Corbetthistorian. Prolific documentary maker. Eg. the WW1 conspiracy (YT) explains the 20st century in an novel way. Zerohedge
The Saker an outspoken activist Russian American ex Red Cross and intel operator Geneva
MorphoniusBlackstone intelligence (Y,T honest patriot and historian commentator against the War party)hie met Edward J Griffin die het ontstaan van de FED beschreeef in The Creature of Jeckyll Island' Consortium news (us) since 1995 legendary Robert Parry (ex-Ass. Press / cia) against silliness and propaganda
Strategic-culture Eurasian / world policy comment doubt, argue and perfectabout Mint Press (us) indep watchdog foreign policy (TruthOut, CommonDreams partners) about dewereldmorgen(be) dagelijks, België /wereld, 'de wereld veranderen begint bij de media' about
Globalresearch(ca) reliable / daily / alarming library, of prof. Michel Chossudovsky: about 'privatization of politics', 'ignorance engineering'
Wiklileaks must see beheind the scenes, leaks organized, search familiar names or type 'pi-piper' (for 2016election fraud), accessible raw material to connect dots and make news of)
Voltairenet.org(fr) non-aligned press groups about international relations -- with Thierry Meysan
Sott.net(us, fr) alt news research fr us world, 150 intl editors since 2002, reprints + long articles + database, daily, weekly, no ads -- with Arkadiusz Jadczyk, Wisconsin
Foreign Affairs(us) the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) journal is above msm's 'preffered narrative' like a cookbook is above the menu! So here you'll read: US' 'proxy war' in Syria (not 'civil war'). ;-)
Google nieuwsja vergelijk mainstream media / msm - (selectie uit deze per definitie onbetrouwbare bron)
disinfo.comsince 1996! 'if you have a difference of opinion, we welcome it' :) about
Indispensible heretics
Paul Craig Roberts (us) ex WSJ collumnist, ex-Secretary of the Treasury, Reagan insider, now realist / progresssive outcast
Karel van Wolferen (nl) hoogleraaar / politiek analist ex-NRC: 'Japan onderging stille coup'
David Steele(us) ...the predicate 'ex-CIA' sounds suspicious? Steele may be a (remarkable) exeption
John Judge(us) An intriguing fountain of insights, grown up IN the Pentagon, Vietnam war historian -- activist (1948-2014)
Glenn Greenwald(br) expat since Snowden scoop (wrapped in Bezos' treacherous 'the Intercept') still good, works in exile
John Pilger(uk / au) ex-BBC documentary maker, long tome media critic, independent political commentator
Thierry Meysan(fr) Voltairenet weekly non-aligned press groups analyze international relations.
Willem Oltmans(nl) 1925 – 2004 nòg actueel dagboek, van de 1-motorige mug, de enige journalist die genocide op Java, jaren zestig, wèl tijdig kon duiden maar niet kon publiceren - zomaar
een voorbeeld, onmisbare dwarsdenker - banneling
Norman Finkelstein(us) NY sobering / enlightening critic of middle east relations and holy subculture
Jim Stone(me) investigative journalist vergaand, bijna ongeloofwaardig, niet onjuist dwzgrondig en onweersproken. gevlucht.
Henry Makov(us) historian, insider scrutinizes controversial issues, a 'financial dynasty', the FED, ... (kritici: selfhating etc)
I F Stone (us) 1907 – 1989 flashback, vergelijk Korea /US /UN aug 1953 met nu: same difference! Julian Assange (eq) Wikileaks, innovative publisher opens Machiavellian reality (all except 911), a dissident in exile
Eva Bartlett (ca) lectures mainstream media after six years of fantasy broadcasts from Syria
Vanessa Beeley (uk) the white helmets (oscar) hoax - draws attack by Soros' NGOs 2018 at UN
Russel Bentley (ua / ru) Donetsk US army volunteer reports casual Ukranian genocide with diligence Korean Haircut (au) comedy. two Aussies curiously entered dungeons of North Korea :)
Sean Stone
Oliver Stone
Tony Judd, Howard Zinn, Francis Drake, Bill Binney, Ray McGovern, Kevin Ship, Chip-Tatum, Aaron Russo Kevin Barret, Webster Tarpley, Jim Fetzer, Ken Okeefe, Eben Moglen, S Kuznich, Anthony Sutton, Barnes, John Gatto, William Blum ... to be continued...
Worldsapart - Similar people official sources independent commenters, at some distance from the West
...alt-news persoonlijkheden zoals Alex
Jones, Luke Rudkovski, Michael Moore, Stefan Molineux, of Martin
Vrijland - zijn miz. in de eerste plaats 'performers' die onthullingen
brengen. Die verhalen kloppen meestal maar het zijn miz performers. Evenals Geert
Wilders bezetten ze een hoekje in
de 'markt' dat een tot zwijgen gebrachte collega misschien net ontgonnen had - hetzelfde repertoire maar met één blind
vlekje (sponsor?), en soms een verzinsel (zoals platte aarde - heel knappe onzin) ter afleiding.
Bronnen zoals
Noam Chomsky, Amy Goodman, Vladimir Goldstein en Chris
Hedges, zijn oprechte 'hervormers', maar ook 'gatekeeper'. Zij bepalen ze wat er op het intellectuele menu staat en uit voorzichtigheid beperken zij zich. Om hun moverende redenen zien we deze auteurs nooit rechtdoor redeneren over bijvoorbeeld JFK (22-11-63), het geldmonopolie
of 9/11. Althans niet over anomaliën, de motieven en daders - die kennelijk de dienst uitmaken. Hoewel Chomsky en Herman
een standaard model formuleerden van alle 'institutionele'
propaganda, kan Chomsky vurig het niet-publiceren verdedigen van alle (coherent wetenschappelijk) onafhankelijk onderzoek van 911truth. Stel je voor, op een dag komt een anomieme kennis van een kennis je vertellen (zoals prof David Jones overkwam, die eigen 9/11 research publiceerde en daarna op non-actief werd gesteld) dat je je ambities moet bijstellen voor de 'common cause' en hij doet wat intimiderende suggesties om niet te publiceren. Gate keeping is (zelf)censuur. Gatekeeping van meerdere posities in een debat kan de wensen van een belangengroep veilig stellen.
Desondanks is het boek van Herman en Chomsky het 'propagandamodel', een belangrijk inkijkje in de integriteit van media content. Elk instituut produceert 'propaganda'. Propaganda komt voort uit keuze van redacteuren door de eigenaren en andere factoren zoals adverteerders en vaste bronnen. Betrouwbaarheid
is niet constant en wordt zeker niet gewaarborgd door de markt zoals ik vroeger aannam. Of iemand een neutraal jasje aan heeft doet er miz ook niet toe. De NOS, Lise Doucet (BBC) en Amanpour van CNN (getrouwd met een persvoorlichter van het US State Dept)) berichten vaak eenzijdig en gekleurd. Dan is een neutraal imago juist het allerergste. Naast de theorie is er geschiedenis over de concrete invloed van staatsdiensten, financiële instituten en andere betrokkenen (MIC, Neocons) die je niet in de krant ziet - haha. Chomsky is een uitstekende leermeester, hij durft te redeneren en veegt de vloer aan met vanzelfsprekendheden. Dan wandelt hij met je naar buiten tot het tuinhekje (de 'gate') maar dan moet je het zelf doen. (Actuele kwesties worden door Chomsky gemeden) Chomsky:''Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.''.
Conspiracy researchers David Icke en
Gordon Duff doen op hun manier een concessie aan de macht, en aan hun eigen geloofwaardigheid, naast kritische observaties gedragen zij zich vaak als dorpsgek. Icke spreekt serieus over 'shapeshifting reptilians'. Dichterlijke vrijheid? Zo'n concessie aan je geloofwaardigheid (de nar spelen) is wellicht beter dan het lot te tarten natuurlijk. Zoals sommige populaire en veelbelovende criticivan de macht deden zoals Aaron Schwartz (web neutrality, reddit, 'data liberation') de activist en organisator), Gary Webb (journalist), Bill
Cooper (pale horse), Malcolm X (black panter), John Lennon (war is over - if you want it), Ted Gundersen (cia-klokkenluider), Phillip Marshall (big bamboozle), David Crowley (graystate, filmmaker), Michael Hastings (journalist), Dany
Jowenko (sloop specialist), Barry Jennings, Beverly Eckert eva. (cruciale getuigen), Tim Tussert (critical news anchor), Traficant (openhartige lastpak), WMD-inspector Kelly, UK foreign secretary Robin Cook ('war on terror is an illusion'), verschillende boodschappers die ons voortijdig verlieten en een wat blekere wereld achterlieten.
Weer
anderen zoals inlichtingen-veteraan David Steel of Ray Mcgovern (ex-cia / VIPS, intelligence professionals for sanity) of ex-diplomaat WillyWimmer lijken geen blad voor de mond te nemen en spreken uitvoerig over operatie
Paperclip, MK-Ultra, Phoenix program, Mockingbird, Gladio, Oded Jinon (Groot Israel), Psychologische operaties (psy-ops), Low intensity warfare, Pseudo-gangs, Heartland theory, Gene Sharp' s color revolution, Hybrid warfare, Monopolized private central banking, Total information awareness, permanent pre-emptive counterrevolution - termen van belang, (Macchiavelli 2.0) pijlers van de wereldorde, die onze politici waarschijnlijk moeten opzoeken.
Het is lastig onwaarheden aan te horen die zelfs niet een klein beetje aan de realiteit geparenteerd zijn. Maar het gebeurt. Liegen loont vaak, wie liegt speelt met wit. De leugen reist de wereld over voordat de waarheid zijn schoenen aan heeft, zoals Mark Twain opmerkte. De waarheid is eigenlijk niet de eerste die sneuvelt in een oorlog maar dat gebeurt ervoor, anders had je geen Vietnam gehad (daar was 'Tonkin incident' voor nodig), ook geen vernietiging van Irak ('WMD's' moesten verzonnen worden, en verkocht) en geen Lybië ('demonstranten-executies') of Afganistan (Tora Bora). De mensen houden niet van oorlog, maar sommige financiële instellingen en hun klanten kunnen er niet buiten, en die controleren via eigendoms posities belangrijke media, al ten minste sinds 1917 - WO1. De geest is namelijk plooibaar, maar ook makkelijk te misleiden. Vertrouwen is onmisbaar in ons leven maar wantrouwen blijft geboden in de maatschappij. Wat heel lastig is, dwz voor een insider, is onware beschuldigingen moeten aanhoren die de waarheid vertellen over daden van de beschuldiger zelf. De eigen misdaden worden schijnbaar witgewassen door demoniseren van onschuldigen - bijvoorbeeld nav een aanval onder valse vlag wordt een halve waarheid vertelt en hele leugens er logisch aan vastgeknoopt - dat wordt gewoon te lastig om te ontwarren voor elke buitenstaander. Dat bestaat echt en het is minder nieuw dan je misschien denkt. Orwell beschreef dat in het essay 'looking back on the Spanish Civil war':
"I saw newspaper reports which did not bear any
relation to the facts, not even the relationship which is implied in an
ordinary lie. (...) I saw great battles reported where there had been no
fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I
saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and
others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of
imaginary victories. I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies
and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events
that had never happened. I saw, in fact, history being written not in
terms of what happened but of what ought to have happened."
Ook het werkje van de immens populaire generaal Butler ('War is a Racket') heeft niets aan actualiteit ingeboet sinds 1932. De media en de schaduw krachten vormen een politiek pincet dat ons 'imperium van illusies' naar oorlog stuurt.
