Connect with us

Americas

How Liars in US ‘News’-Media Build on Prior Lies in US ‘News’

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

The means by which the vast majority of Americans are deceived to believe fake ‘news’ that’s based on fake ‘history’, will be described here, so as to enable America to be understood correctly, as a fake ‘democracy’, the perpetual-war-for-perpetual-peace nation that the entire world considers to be by far the most dangerous nation, the biggest threat to world peace, anywhere on this planet. The system of mass-deceit in America, will be the subject, and examples will be cited here as embodiments displaying this system of mass-deceit — the mass-deceit that enables the U.S. Government to be the world’s most aggressive, most destructive, not only in Iraq, and in Yemen, but shamelessly, and repeatedly, destroying worldwide, with no respect for international laws that this Government blatantly violates, and is never held accountable for having violated. How is this mass-deceit, and total impunity, to be understood correctly, truthfully? That’s the question addressed here.

TIME magazine’s cover-story, “VOICES FROM THE RUBBLE: Syrians on living in the line of fire”, issue-date 12 March 2018, was co-authored by Wendy Pearlman, who recently published a book of narratives from many Syrian-war victims who blame Bashar al-Assad (whom the U.S. Government wants to overthrow) for the miseries they’ve suffered since the “Arab Spring” started in 2011. Her co-authored article in TIME reads like a brief version of her sole-authored book. To read either the book or the article is to receive the impression that Assad must be a monster, and that he certainly is an extremely unpopular person in Syria. However, both impressions are demonstrably false. This isn’t necessarily to assert that Pearlman doesn’t believe what she writes, but only that there’s a great willingness on the part of U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media to spread (i.e., to hire and publish propagandists who write such) extremely one-sided accounts that support the U.S. Government’s regime-change story-line (in today’s Syria, just the same as it was in 2003 Iraq — but then it was against Saddam Hussein), so that America’s ‘news’media might as well be controlled by the very same people who control America’s invasion-craving international corporations, like Lockheed Martin and ExxonMobil. Accounts from the other side of this war — the side that will here be documented to be the truth, namely that Bashar al-Assad is overwhelmingly popular amongst the Syrian people — have been published online-only, by terrific investigative journalists such as Vanessa Beeley, and Eva Bartlett, among others; but, none of those high-quality journalists have been accepted for publication by mainstream members of the U.S. and allied ‘news’-media. That side regarding this war, the “inconvenient” truth about it, is instead blacked-out, by the mainstream ‘news’ media — the U.S. regime’s PR mouthpieces.

Perhaps what’s even worse is that ‘alternative-news’ media in the U.S. and its allies, have, likewise, almost universally, given voice only (or, in other cases, mainly) to the anti-Assad side of this war. Are they, too, controlled by the U.S. aristcracy?

The following report exposes one faux-‘progressive’ war-monger and propagandist for U.S. invasions of countries that never invaded nor even threatened the U.S.: Amy Goodman, and her “Democracy Now!” ‘alternative’ ’news’ media for Democratic Party billionaires’ international operations (such as for regime-change in Syria). These propaganda-operations (just like the acknowlegedly mainstream ones, such as TIME) promote using U.S. taxpayers’ money (the U.S. military, which is the most respected institution amongst Americans and thus receives “the benefit of the doubt” regarding any atrocities it may perpetrate — such as its having poisoned Iraq with depleted uranium, for example) — using taxpayers’ money for so-called ‘humanitarian’ reasons that are actually just sales-angles for American billionaires’ bloody conquests of resistant foreign countries (in this case, Syria). This propaganda is aimed at fooling liberals, or even “peaceniks,” into supporting what are actually hidden financial benefits for these behind-the-scenes billionaires.

Exposed here will be the depths that hypocrisy and psychopathy (both of which are pervasive at the very top of society, amongst the aristocrats and their retainers) plunge down to, in American ‘news’. This type of operation can be done only by taking advantage, especially, of well-intentioned Democrats, in order for billionaires to become enabled to use taxpayers’ money, to boost actually the private wealth not only of Democratic Party billionaires, but even of Republican Party billionaires — even of ‘the political opposition.’ The example that will be presented in detail here, typifies a depraved scheme for the warfare-state (not the welfare-state, which instead becomes proportionately reduced as the warfare-state becomes increased), a scheme (support of the military-industrial complex, or “MIC,” and its permanent-war-for-permanent-peace economy) which largely controls America, in order to build and maintain the public’s support for obscenely high ‘defense’ spending and billionaires’ ‘defense’ profits, which government-spending produces catastrophes for the victim-nations, such as Iraq 2003, Libya 2011, and Syria 2012-, all of which invasions are especially profitable for the owners of America’s ‘defense’ contractors such as General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin, which depend upon war in order to funnel money from the domestic masses, to the domestic classes, via taxes. And, of course, American resource-extraction corporations, such as oil-and-gas giants, also benefit handsomely from it, by grabbing foreign resources. Megabanks benefit, too. After all: it’s the U.S. aristocracy that’s behind this, the ultimate paymasters for these propaganda-operations (and some details of this fact of aristocratic sponsorship will be documented here).

Goodman opened her February 23rd youtube,

As Death Toll Rises in Eastern Ghouta, Has International Community Abandoned the Syrian People?

Democracy Now! 23 February 2018

“A ‘monstrous campaign of annihilation’ — that’s how the United Nations is describing the Syrian Government’s recent barrage of air strikes and artillery fire against the rebel-held enclave of Eastern Ghouta.”

and she introduced there what were actually her carefully vetted neoconservative-neoliberal three guests, to discuss why Syria’s Government is (supposedly) the enemy of the Syrian people, and thereby, also supposedly, America’s enemy (though it’s actually neither — but it is instead the enemy of American, Saudi, and Qatari, billionaires):

”On Thursday [February 22nd], we hosted an extended web-only conversation with Rawya Rageh of Amnesty International, Syrian-American journalist Alia Malek and Wendy Pearlman, author of ‘We Crossed a Bridge and It Trembled: Voices from Syria’.”

The first thing that was hidden from her viewers was that all three guests are propagandists whose careers are heavily dependent upon their having won approval from U.S. billionaires and centi-millionaires, and from those individuals’ foreign colleagues.

The Wikipedia article about Raya Rageh lists the numerous employers and sponsors of her career, such as Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, and Al Jazeera — the broadcast network controlled by the royal Thani family, who own gas-rich Qatar (and who want a gax-pipeline to be built through Syria into the European Union), and whose media-strategy (since they’re allies of U.S. billionaires) is to broadcast pro-jihadist propaganda inside the country that they own (Qatar), in its Arabic language, which few Westerners can understand, but to broadcast anti-jihadist propaganda in Western languages in Western and anti-jihadist countries.

Alia Malek received the 2016 Hiett Prize award from The Dallas Institute, which was founded by Margaret McDermott, the former society-page editor of the Dallas Morning News, and the widow of Geophysical Service Inc. co-founder Eugene McDermott, whose company developed technology for finding oil-and-gas deposits, such as in Qatar. Malek was a senior writer for the Thanis’ Al Jazeera America, and has also been published in New Yorker, New York Times, and The Nation. Her popularly selling 2017 book blaming Bashar al-Assad for the war in Syria, The Home That Was Our Country: A Memoir of Syria, describes the “oppression that exists in a dictatorship,” and makes no mention, at all, of the 2014 elections in Syria, which were internationally monitored since there was a war going on, and in which, Syrians, not only inside Syria but who had escaped the war and lived abroad, voted, and in which the sitting President, Assad, won 89% of the total votes cast.

Furthermore, the British polling firm Orb International’s 2014 nationwide Syrian poll found (page 10) 35% support for “The Assad Government” and only 21% support for “Political Opposition” and 14% support for “Moderate armed opposition” plus 13% support for “Violent extremist religious groups”.

A year later, Orb polled again, and found (“Table 3”) that 47% of Syrians said that Assad had a “positive” effect on the country (this question hadn’t been asked in the year-earlier, 2014, poll); 37% said “Arab Gulf Countries” (the U.S. Government’s allies) did; 36% said “Free Syrian Army” (America’s proxies or boots-on-the-ground fighting against Assad) did; 25% said “Nusra Front” (Al Qaeda in Syria, which trained and led the Free Syrian Army) did; and 21% said “Islamic State” (ISIS or ISIL) did. 76% said ISIL had a “negative effect” on Syria, and a full 82% of Syrians said (Table 26) “ISIL is produced by the United States.”

So, Amy Goodman’s propaganda in “Democracy Now!” regarding Syria, was actually against any democracy at all, in Syria; because, clearly, democracy would retain the existing Syrian President in office. Her position was thus identical to former U.S. President Barack Obama’s position, against democracy in Syria, and for Al Qaeda in Syria. U.S. President Donald Trump continues that policy.

Here is what Goodman’s guest Wendy Pearlman had written in Huffington Post, on 23 April 2014, under the headline “The Argument Against U.S. Intervention in Syria… And Why It’s Wrong”:

Jihadist groups became powerful in Syria because blood flowed for months while the opposition’s cries for assistance went ignored. Had the international community acted earlier, these extremists might never have emerged on the scene. Most Syrians view al-Qaeda as another form of tyranny. Many have risked their lives to protest agianst [against] it. It is a cruel irony that the United States, which championed the “war on terror,” now leaves besieged civilians to fight al-Qaeda on their own. …

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. imposed regime change from the outside. In Syria, an anti-regime struggle emerged from the grassroots. …

The reality (quite the opposite of Pearlman’s “It is a cruel irony that the United States, which championed the ‘war on terror,’ now leaves besieged civilians to fight al-Qaeda on their own”) is that ever since 2012 the U.S. regime has actually been supporting and supplying arms to Al Qaeda in Syria so as to overthrow the secular, non-sectarian, Government of Syria — which Assad heads — and to replace it by a fundamentalist-Sunni theocratic one, which will cooperate with Qatar and Saudi Arabia to allow U.S. oil-and-gas pipelines to be built through Syria. The reality is also that U.S. President Barack Obama entered office in 2009 hoping to do this, and that the entire “Arab Spring” movement was aimed at achieving the Thanis’ will throughout the region: The Thanis are the main financial supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood (which briefly took over in Egypt after the “Arab Spring”), but they also back Al Qaeda when America’s White House does (such as in Syria). And the U.S. Government had long been preparing the “Arab Spring” movement — by no means was it only the Thanis. (In fact, Obama came into office hoping for something like that; and, by 2011, his Administration was actively planning to exploit it specifically so as to overthrow Bashar al-Assad.

First published at strategic culture

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010

Continue Reading
Comments

Americas

Delusions of U.S. Hegemony In A Multi-Polar World: Trump Visits Europe

Dr. Arshad M. Khan

Published

on

To say that US foreign policy is delusional is not an exaggeration.  It seeks political hegemony and a relationship with China and Russia akin to what it has had with Japan and Germany, that is, go ahead and develop in the economic sphere but don’t try to flex political or military muscle.

There are at least two problems with this scenario:  China is now the world’s largest economy on a purchasing power parity basis, and the Russians have the nuclear capacity to make a wasteland out of the US.  Russian weapons systems can also be superior.

Take the S-400 in comparison with the US Patriot missile defense system — the purpose of these surface-to-air systems is to shoot down incoming missiles or aircraft.  The S-400 has a more powerful radar, double the range, is faster (Mach 6 vs Mach 5), takes five minutes to set up against one hour for the Patriot, and is cheaper.  China has just bought 32 launchers and is expected to buy more, thereby challenging Japan, Taiwan (which it claims) and other neighbors for control of the skies, as it is doing over the seas bordering itself.  NATO member Turkey has recently signed a purchase deal, and Iran wants to, as does Qatar after its recent spat with Saudi Arabia.  If Russia supplies Iran, any attack planned by the US or Israel would prove to be very costly and politically infeasible.

In our world of instant and continuous news feeds, one can imagine a bemused Vladimir Putin listening to Trump exhorting NATO members to increase contributions to NATO — an organization designed to counter the Russian threat — specifically castigating Germany’s Angela Merkel for being beholden to Russia with her country’s reliance on Russian natural gas.

Early next week he meets Mr. Putin in Helsinki, fresh from his soft power World Cup triumph as the world beat a path to Russia.  What does Mr. Trump tell the leader of the world’s largest country covering eleven time zones?  US political hegemony is a non-starter.

Europeans clearly want access to China, its labor, its markets, even finance, and with it comes Russia and their numerous initiatives together including the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIE) their answer to the US-sponsored World Bank.  That Britain joined AIIB contrary to US wishes is a clear sign of China rising as the US declines comparatively;  Britain, having faced up to the US, was followed by a rush of European countries.

Russia wants sanctions lifted.  What does the US want?  Crimea is a non-starter.  Help with Iran?  For the Russians, it has become an important ally both with regard to Syria and as a Mideast power in its own right.  Mr. Trump’s instincts are right.  But what he achieves is another matter.  Childish petulance accompanied by a different story for different leaders would leave an observer with little optimism.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump manufactures and markets his own reality; this time on his popularity (‘I think they like me a lot in the UK’) despite avoiding roads and traveling by helicopter when possible during his pared down UK visit.  Hordes of demonstrators undeterred have a giant parade balloon several stories high of a bloated child with the trademark blonde hair.  It is one the largest demonstrations ever outside the US against a sitting president.

Continue Reading

Americas

This 70-year-old program prepares young women for leadership

MD Staff

Published

on

A record number of women are running for public office this year. In the near future, we can expect more female public servants representing the American people — from local chambers to Capitol Hill. In light of this exciting trend, it is important to highlight programs that help develop young women to become the next generation of female leaders. One such program? American Legion Auxiliary (ALA) Girls Nation.

ALA Girls Nation is a weeklong mock experiential learning program, one that positions high-potential teens for a lifetime of public service to our country. This summer, 100 female high school seniors — two from each of our 50 states — will convene in Washington, D.C., for the 72nd Annual ALA Girls Nation. Each teenage girl represents her state as a “senator” — mirroring the structure of government at the federal level. During this transformative weeklong program, these senators form a fictitious nation, become “Nationalists” and “Federalists,” enthusiastically campaign to hold office, and — perhaps most important — accept and celebrate the outcome of these elections and come together to serve for the good of the nation.

ALA is a nonpartisan organization committed to advocating for veterans’ issues, promoting patriotism, mentoring America’s youth and proudly presenting ALA Girls Nation for over 70 years. The ALA Girls State and ALA Girls Nation are privately-funded and presented by members of the organization. The world’s largest women’s patriotic service organization, ALA was chartered in 1919 to support the mission of The American Legion.

More than 6,500 young women have attended ALA Girls Nation since its inception in 1947. Each participant leaves the program informed about the fundamentals of U.S. government — and the rights, privileges and responsibilities of citizens. It lasts for one short week. Yet the seven-day experience — one that champions the legislative process and serious collaboration — has laid the foundation for thousands of bright futures.

Many alumnae have chosen careers in public service, putting their ALA Girls State and ALA Girls Nation experience into action to serve the people. The lessons learned about teamwork, resilience and the democratic principles that guide the republic in which we live are applied in real life by many alums who have gone on to serve at the local, state and national level — including high-ranking members of the judiciary.

Justice Lorie S. Gildea began her tenure as chief justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2010. She participated in the state-level version of ALA Girls Nation, known as ALA Girls State in 1979 — and the program, Gildea said, “empowered her to embark upon a lifetime of service and leadership.”

“At ALA Girls State, we learn that every voice has value and that every woman needs to use her voice,” said Gildea. “We also learn that we need to be courageous and confident enough to take life up on the opportunities that present themselves to us.”

“An informed citizenry is essential to the success of our democracy. ALA Girls State [and ALA Girls Nation] plays a vital role in informing and educating our future leaders,” Gildea said. “It is a wonderful opportunity to learn about and see firsthand how the three branches of our government work. I am so grateful to the American Legion Auxiliary for presenting ALA Girls State and teaching me and thousands of Minnesota’s young women about the value of participation and the possibility of leadership.”

Other alumnae have gone on to hold leadership roles in industries spanning government, military, media, education and law. Notable alumnae include Jane Pauley, national media personality; Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, president of Augustana University and former South Dakota U.S. representative; Susan Bysiewicz, former Connecticut Secretary of State; Lt. Gen. Michelle D. Johnson, superintendent of the U.S. Air Force Academy and former Air Force aide to the president; Ann Richards, former governor of Texas; and Susan Porter-Rose, former chief of staff to First Lady Barbara Bush — among countless others.

For some girls, it is their first opportunity to connect with peers with common interests. For others, it is the first time they encounter students whose perspectives differ from their own. For all, it is a moment in time when a select few teenage girls from all over the country come together to discover and celebrate the honor and importance of participating in our democracy. To learn more, visit www.ALAforVeterans.org.

Continue Reading

Americas

Colombia-Venezuela: A Conflict with US Participation

Published

on

The victory of right-wing candidate Ivan Duque in the Colombian presidential elections is not the best news for Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. The newly elected president has already refused to recognize Maduro’s victory in the recent elections in Venezuela and announced that he would not send an ambassador to Caracas.

It is believed that Ivan Duque is the successor of the political line of the Colombian ex-president Alvaro Uribe (in power from 2000 to 2008) who was notorious first of all for fighting the left radical insurgent FARC group and accusing Hugo Chavez who was the Venezuelan President at that time, of harboring the FARC rebels in Venezuelan territory.

Troubled Sister Countries

There is no need to recall that Maduro owes his entire political career to the late Chavez.  Maduro was not only a long-time associate of Chavez but was perceived in society as the heir to Venezuela’s legendary leftist leader. Maduro also inherited from Chavez a course toward friendship with Russia (Russia made large investments in Venezuela), as well as a diplomatic confrontation with the USA and its main ally in northern Latin America – Colombia. At one time Chavez made a point calling Colombia, intertwined with Venezuela by a 1,300 km-long common border, “Latin American Israel, hinting at the military and economic support provided by Washington to the Colombian leadership. In 2010 Chavez broke off any of his country’s relations with Colombia.

Despite the fact that Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos, who succeeded Uribe, signed a peace agreement with the FARC in 2016, the relationship between Caracas and Bogota during Santos’ rule has not improved. In his recent speech President Maduro accused Santos of interfering in Venezuela’s internal affairs, to which Santos responded with speeches lamenting the lack of freedom in the “leftist” Venezuela.

Hatred against “Chavism”

Optimists expected relations to improve if the left candidate – Bogotá Mayor Gustav Petro would have won the elections in Colombia. In fact now Juan Manuel Santos finishes his second term as a “lame duck” after Duque’s victory, and his dislike for Maduro can no longer have a negative impact on relations. But Petro lost, although he received 42 percent of the vote. And the very course of the presidential campaign showed that this is not about personal antipathies, but about strong ideological differences between the leaders of Venezuela and Colombia. During the election campaign, Duque’s supporters declared the slogan: “Vote for our candidate, so that Colombia does not become another Venezuela.” The former Colombian President Uribe does not conceal his hatred for “Castro-Chavism,” and the victory of his candidate (Uribe created the Democratic Party that supported Duque) does not promise Maduro or any other “chavist” relations improvement.

Russia’s Stance

Russia takes an emphatically distant position in relation to the political standoff of the two neighboring Latin American countries, and this approach seems reasonable in this situation. Russia does not make a secret of the fact that Venezuela is experiencing enormous economic difficulties. The Institute of Latin American Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences acknowledged that there is hyperinflation in the country and that its GDP reduced by 12 % in 2017.

Russian political analysts are aware of the US interest in the “early collapse of the Chavist regime”, but nevertheless, they do not veil the fact that Venezuela’s leadership is primarily to blame for the country’s economic problems. Experts of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy (CFDP) also came to this conclusion, pointing out the inability of the Venezuelan leadership to convert petrodollars of 2000s into diversification of domestic economy. So the Russian approach to both Venezuelan and Colombian issues can be seen as lacking ideology: Russian companies responded to Venezuela’s business proposals, but this response was based on mutually beneficial cooperation, not on a desire to support a left or right ideology.

Violence as Tradition

As for the continuing ideological struggle between the “left” Venezuela and the “right” Colombia, its result is far from a foregone conclusion. The success or failure of  the ruling elites in Venezuela, and especially in Colombia, people estimate not only by economic indicators, but also by the safety of life.  And in Colombia, this is even worse than in Venezuela: the leftist insurgent movement FARC (the “Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia”) has waged a civil war in Colombia since 1964. And FARC seized the baton of violence from the so-called liberals: the conflict between the Colombian government and the FARC grew out of the war between supporters of the Liberal and Conservative parties of Colombia that continued for a decade (!) in 1948-1958, (it is this violence, which claimed about 200,000 lives, was reflected in Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s novel “One Hundred Years of Solitude”).

In 2016, the outgoing President Juan Manuel signed a peace agreement with the FARC, but the majority of the country’s population refused to approve the agreement in a referendum. Violence and fear did not stop although the FARC became a formally legal political party and changed the meaning of the abbreviation of its name (Fuerza Alternativa Revolucionariadel Comun – The Common Alternative Revolutionary Force).

The fact is that the violence in Colombia in recent decades has come not so much from the left, but from the right side of the political spectrum. Even the traditionally anti-communist British BBC reports that in the political sector Colombia has a radical, sometimes violent, right-wing tradition.

The BBC admits that this tradition in Colombia is linked, among other things, to the murders of leftist politicians and cultural figures. The members of the so-called “The United Self-Defenders of Colombia” (Autodefensas Unidas de Columbia – AUC) especially often resorted to violence. For many years they proclaimed their task to wage armed struggle against the FARC rebels.  But in 1997-2006. under the pretext of  fighting the Colombian “chavistas,” the AUC forces killed thousands of people; in 2006 the AUC was officially declared a terrorist organization and dissolved. Before that, this ultra-right group was reported to be involved in drug trafficking as well as in hostage-taking for ransom – the two types of criminal activity traditionally associated with the FARC. As for the level of violence, the AUC and their successors leave far behind Venezuela’s government forces who have killed several dozen protesters in recent months.

Maduro Accuses

In his propaganda war with President Santos, which is likely to soon turn into a propaganda war with the new Colombian President – Duque, Maduro and his supporters emphasize the ties between the Colombian government and the USA and the US intelligence services. There is nothing unexpected in this accusation: Uribe as well as Santos closely collaborated with the “advisers” from Washington and even invited the American armed forces into the country.

But now, when the chair beneath him staggers, Maduro considers Colombia as a “strike force” of US intervention directed at him. Recently  Maduro directly accused Colombia of trying to provoke an armed conflict with Venezuela and overthrow the “chavist” authority.

This Maduro’s accusation against Bogota is worth listening to. In this situation Russia will have many allies among Latin American countries: after all, even cautious Brazil and Argentina turned against the Colombian President Santos, when in early 2010s Colombia started talking about deploying American bases on its territory. However, later the same countries which are part of the Organization of American States excluded Venezuela from their ranks for the deficit of democracy. Somewhat strange contradiction.  From this one can assume that the countries of the southern continent want democracy, but without American “supervision”.

First published in our partner International Affairs

Continue Reading

Latest

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy