Perpetrators, Purveyors or Passionate about Freedom of Speech Paris debacle

Hyp Photo Op

Hyp Netanyahu hand in pocket

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Netanyahu with hands in pocket.
Copied here from June McGuire

In the front row of the Paris ‘free speech’ march,

as pointed out in a series of tweets by Daniel Wickham:

– Prime Minister Rajoy of Spain, whose government just passed the Ley Mordaza, a gag law placing historic restrictions on the right to protest in Spain.
– Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia, which last year jailed a journalist for “insulting a government servant” .
– Foreign Minister Shoukry of Egypt, which as well as Al Jazeera staff has detained journalist Shawkan for around 500 days.
– King Abdullah of Jordan, which last year sentenced a Palestinian journalist to 15 years in prison with hard labour.
– Prime Minister Davutoglu of Turkey, which imprisons more journalists than any other country in the world.
– Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel, whose forces killed 17 journalists in Gaza last year (second highest after Syria).
– Foreign Minister Lamamra of Algeria, which has detained journalist Abdessami Abdelhai for 15 months without charges.
– The Foreign Minister of the United Arab Emirates, which in 2013 held a journalist incommunicado for a month on suspicion of MB links.
– Prime Minister Jomaa of Tunisia, which recently jailed blogger Yassine Ayan for 3 years for “defaming the army”.
– The Prime Ministers of Georgia and Bulgaria, both of whom have a record of attacking & beating journalists.
– The Attorney General of the US, where police in Ferguson have recently detained and assaulted Washington Post reporters.
– Prime Minister Samaras of Greece, where riot police beat & injured two journalists at a protest in June last year
– Secretary-General of NATO, who are yet to be held to account for deliberately bombing and killing 16 Serbian journalists in ’99.
– President Keita of Mali, where journalists are expelled for covering human rights abuses.
– The Foreign Minister of Bahrain, 2nd biggest jailer of journos in the world per capita (they also torture them).
– Sheikh Mohamed Ben Hamad Ben Khalifa Al Thani of Qatar, which jailed a man for 15 ys for writing the Jasmine poem.
– Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, who had several journalists jailed for insulting him in 2013.
– Prime Minister Cerar of Slovenia, which sentenced a blogger to six months in prison for “defamation” in 2013.
– Prime Minister Enda Kenny of Ireland, where “blasphemy” is considered a criminal offense.
– Prime Minister Kopacz of Poland, which raided a magazine to seize recordings embarrassing for the ruling party.
– Prime Minister Cameron of the UK, where authorities destroyed documents obtained by The Guardian and threatened prosecution.
– Prime Minister Orbán of Hungary, the autocrat who Amnesty says has “put an end to the free press in Hungary.”

Via June McGuire facebook page

Advertisements

Turkey aids, abets. Provides safe passage #video

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani says those governments that have formed a coalition to fight terrorism should first cut off the financial lifeline of terrorist groups.

“Those who claim to be fighting terrorism and those who have formed a coalition [against terrorism] should in the first step make efforts to have financial aid to terrorist groups cut,” President Rouhani said in a meeting with Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi in Tehran on Tuesday.

Noting that terrorism has grown into a major problem for all countries in the Middle East, the president warned that the US-led anti-ISIL coalition’s airstrikes against the terrorists’ positions will only benefit the Takfiri group in the long run.

The US-led coalition has conducted several airstrikes on ISIL positions across Iraq, but the air raids have so far failed to dislodge the terrorists.

The Iraqi army, backed by volunteer forces, has been fighting the terrorist group for nearly six months now.

“Iran believes that the main responsibility in the fight against terrorist groups should be shouldered by Iraqi government and popular forces. The more united the Iraqi nation…the more successful they will be,” the Iranian president pointed out.

He emphasized that Iran has been supporting the Iraqi nation and army in their fight against terrorist groups from the very first day and would proceed with this policy until the end.

Rouhani vowed that Iran would spare no effort in helping the Iraqi government and called on regional governments to counter terrorism in a “coordinated and integrated” way to uproot this phenomenon.

The Iraqi premier, for his part, said terrorism poses a threat to all regional countries, adding that Iraq is assured of Iran’s assistance for the Arab country until the eradication of terrorism.

Che Guevara 43rd death anniversary

Cuba marks 43rd anniversary of Che Guevara’s death

HAVANA, Oct. 8 (Xinhua) — Cuba marked on Friday the 43rd anniversary of the death of Argentine-Cuban guerrilla legend Ernesto “Che” Guevara, who was killed in La Higuera village in Bolivia.

As traditionally, the official media devoted several articles to commemorate the legendary guerrilla leader. A total of 120,000 pupils received their blue scarf insignia, which identified them as members of the Jose Marti Pioneers Organization, and swore “to be like Che Guevara.”

Born on June 14, 1928 in Rosario, Argentina, and graduated as a doctor,Guevara started his “legend” after meeting Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro in 1955 in Mexico and travelled to Cuba to participate in the guerrilla fight till the victory over the dictatorship of Batista on Jan. 1, 1959.

In 1966 he went to Bolivia to start another revolution and on Oct. 8, 1967 he was captured by the army. One day later, he was killed in a small school at the La Higuera village. SOURCE:  Xinhuanet English news

The Cuban government has always commemorated Guevara as the example of “new man,” to be followed by the young generations.

 

Che Guevara’s ‘betrayer’ tells his side of the story after 40 years

Ciro Bustos, who sketched Guevara’s face for the Bolivian army, tries to kill myth he sold out the Argentinian revolutionary

Ciro Bustos was 26 and at his in-laws’ house for a barbecue one spring Sunday in 1958 when he first heard the voice. It belonged to a fellow Argentinian, a doctor four years his senior who was fighting alongside Fidel Castro in the mountains of south-eastern Cuba.

As he listened to the radio, the young artist was struck by the contrast between the grandiloquence of the Cuban and the quiet, almost apologetic tones of the Argentinian.

“The way Che spoke, the way he answered questions, was totally different from Castro,” says Ciro, whose recollection of the broadcast has not been blunted by the intervening half-century.

“There was no bombast, no prima donna attitude. It was like talking to your brother, so normal and so calm. That was what moved me so much.”

The interview Radio El Mundo carried that Sunday proved a siren call. Che Guevara’s voice – and the political struggle he embodied – would lead Bustos to Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Algeria and back to Argentina before the disastrous Bolivia expedition of 1967 that would cost Che his life and blacken Bustos’s name for four decades.

Until 2007, when his memoir, Che Wants to See You, appeared in Spanish, Bustos had been seen by many as the man who betrayed Guevara and his brothers-in-arms by sketching their faces for his interrogators, who caught him after he marched out of the Bolivian jungle on Guevara’s orders. SOURCE: Guardian

 

The American troll version on the life and legacy of

Ernesto “Che” Guevara

Forty two years ago today, Ernesto “Che” Guevara got a major dose of his own medicine. Without trial he was declared a murderer, stood against a wall and shot. Historically speaking, justice has rarely been better served. If the saying “What goes around comes around” ever fit, it’s here.
“When you saw the beaming look on Che’s face as the victims were tied to the stake and blasted apart by the firing squad,” said a former Cuban political prisoner, to your humble servant, “you saw there was something seriously, seriously wrong with Che Guevara.” As commander of the La Cabana execution yard, Che often shattered the skull of the condemned man (or boy) by firing the coup de grace himself. When other duties tore him away from his beloved execution yard, he consoled himself by viewing the slaughter. Che’s second-story office in La Cabana had a section of wall torn out so he could watch his darling firing-squads at work.
A Rumanian journalist named Stefan Bacie visited Cuba in early 1959 and was fortunate enough to get an audience with the already quasi-famous Ernesto “Che” Guevara. Upon entering Castro’s chief executioner’s office, Bacie noticed Che motioning him over to the office’s newly constructed window. Bacie got there just in time to hear the command of FUEGO!, hear the blast from the firing squad and see a condemned prisoner crumple and convulse
The stricken journalist immediately left and composed a poem, titled, “I No Longer Sing of Che.” (“I no longer sing of Che any more than I would of Stalin,” go the first lines.)
Even as a youth, Ernesto Guevara’s writings revealed a serious mental illness. “My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any vencido that falls in my hands! With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl!” This passage is from Ernesto Guevara’s famous Motorcycle Diaries, though Robert Redford somehow overlooked it while directing his heart-warming movie.
The Spanish word vencido, by the way, translates into “defeated” or “surrendered.”And indeed, “the “acrid odor of gunpowder and blood” very, very rarely reached Guevara’s nostrils from anything properly describable as combat. It mostly came from the close-range murders of unarmed and defenseless men (and boys.) Carlos Machado was 15 years old in 1963 when the bullets from the firing squad shattered his body. His twin brother and father collapsed beside Carlos from the same volley. All had resisted Castro and Che’s theft of their humble family farm, all refused blindfolds and all died sneering at their Communist murderers, as did thousands of their valiant countrymen..“Viva Cuba Libre! Viva Cristo Rey! Abajo Comunismo!” “The defiant yells would make the walls of La Cabana prison tremble,” wrote eyewitness to the slaughter, Armando Valladares.
Rigoberto Hernandez was 17 when Che’s soldiers dragged him from his cell in La Cabana, jerked his head back to gag him, and started dragging him to the stake. Little “Rigo” pleaded his innocence to the very bloody end. But his pleas were garbled and difficult to understand. His struggles while being gagged and bound to the stake were also awkward. The boy had been a janitor in a Havana high school and was mentally retarded. His single mother had pleaded his case with hysterical sobs. She had begged, beseeched and finally proven to his “prosecutors” that it was a case of mistaken identity. Her only son, a boy in such a condition, couldn’t possibly have been “a CIA agent planting bombs.”
FUEGO!” and the firing squad volley shattered Rigo’s little bent body as he moaned and struggled awkwardly against his bounds, blindfold and gag. Remember the gallant Che Guevara’s instructions to his revolutionary courts: “judicial evidence is an archaic bourgeois detail.” And remember Harvard Law School’s invitation and rollicking ovation to Fidel Castro during the very midst of this appalling bloodbath.
Not that the victims of this Stalinist bloodbath were exclusively men and boys. In fact, the Castroites were well ahead of the Taliban. On Christmas Eve 1961 a young Cuban woman named Juana Diaz spat in the face of the executioners who were binding and gagging her. They’d found her guilty of feeding and hiding “bandits” (Che’s term for Cuban rednecks who took up arms to fight his theft of their land to create Stalinist kolkhozes.) When the blast from that firing squad demolished her face and torso Juana was six months pregnant.
The term “hatred” was a constant in Che Guevara’s (this icon of flower children) writings: “Hatred as an element of struggle”; “hatred that is intransigent;” “hatred so violent that it propels a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him violent and cold- blooded killing machine.”
The one genuine accomplishment in Che Guevara’s life was the mass-murder of defenseless men and boys. Under his own gun dozens died. Under his orders thousands crumpled. At everything else Che Guevara failed abysmally, even comically.
During his Bolivian “guerrilla” campaign, Che split his forces whereupon they got hopelessly lost and bumbled around, half-starved, half-clothed and half-shod, without any contact with each other for 6 months before being wiped out. They didn’t even have WWII vintage walkie-talkies to communicate and seemed incapable of applying a compass reading to a map. They spent much of the time walking in circles and were usually within a mile of each other. During this blundering they often engaged in ferocious firefights against each other.
“You hate to laugh at anything associated with Che, who murdered so many,” says Felix Rodriguez, the Cuban-American CIA officer who played a key role in tracking him down in Bolivia. “But when it comes to Che as “guerrilla” you simply can’t help but guffaw.”
Che’s genocidal fantasies included a continental reign of Stalinism. And to achieve this ideal he craved, “millions of atomic victims” — most of them Americans. “The U.S. is the great enemy of mankind!” raved Ernesto Che Guevara in 1961. “Against those hyenas there is no option but extermination. We will bring the war to the imperialist enemies’ very home, to his places of work and recreation. The imperialist enemy must feel like a hunted animal wherever he moves. Thus we’ll destroy him! We must keep our hatred against them [the U.S.] alive and fan it to paroxysms!”
This was Che’s prescription for America almost half a century before Osama bin Laden, Mullah Omar and Al-Zarqawi appeared on our radar screens. Compared to Che Guevara, Ahmadinejad sounds like the Dalai Lama.
So for many, the questions remains: how did such an incurable doofus, sadist and epic idiot attain such iconic status?
The answer is that this psychotic and thoroughly unimposing vagrant named Ernesto Guevara de la Serna y Lynch had the magnificent fortune of linking up with modern history’s top press agent, Fidel Castro, who — from the New York Times’ Herbert Matthews in 1957, through CBS’ Ed Murrow in 1959 to CBS’ Dan Rather, to ABC’s Barbara Walters, to NBC’s Andrea Mitchell more recently — always had the mainstream media anxiously scurrying to his every beck and call and eating out of his hand like trained pigeons.
Had Ernesto Guevara not linked up with Raul and Fidel Castro in Mexico city that fateful summer of 1955 — had he not linked up with a Cuban exile named Nico Lopez in Guatemala the year before who later introduced him to Raul and Fidel Castro in Mexico City — everything points to Ernesto continuing his life of a traveling hobo, panhandling, mooching off women, staying in flophouses and scribbling unreadable poetry.
Che’s image is particularly ubiquitous on college campuses. But in the wrong places. He belongs in the marketing, PR and advertising departments. His lessons and history are fascinating and valuable, but only in light of P.T. Barnum. One born every minute, Mr. Barnum? If only you’d lived to see the Che phenomenon. Actually, ten are born every second.

His pathetic whimpering while dropping his fully-loaded weapons as two Bolivian soldiers approached him on Oct. 8 1967 (“Don’t shoot!” I’m Che!” I’m worth more to you alive than dead!”) proves that this cowardly, murdering swine was unfit to carry his victims’ slop buckets.

[Editor’s note: In honor of “No-Che-Day” at the Young Americas Foundation, a video on Che featuring Humberto Fontova is available on the YAF website.]

Humberto Fontova is the author of four books including Exposing the Real Che Guevara. Visit hfontova.com

 

Alan Henning killed by IS or #JSIL

Alan Hemming Killed by IS #JSIL

The #JSIL idea was created by Alternet’s Senior Writer, Max Blumenthal, and the concept expanded upon by the independent journalist Rania Khalek
Picture courtesy of & Via @ninjaaachinchin on twitter

 Twitter search for #JSIL

#JSIL: Activists come up with new ISIS-inspired name for Israel
Activists Start Calling Israel #JSIL -the Jewish State of Israel in the Levant

 

 

For 15 pictures on the timeline of “Emergence of IS” and quote.   SOURCE: Independent

Imams and other influential figures had joined forces to appeal to the terrorists to release the aid worker, a former taxi driver from Salford who left his job to travel to Syria to take help to victims of its civil war.

Dr Shuja Shafi, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “This reported murder is a despicable and offensive act, coming as it does on the eve of the Muslim festival of Eid Al-Adha.

“It is quite clear that the murderers of Alan Henning have no regard for Islam, or for the Muslims around the world who pleaded for his life.

“Alan was a friend of Muslims, and he will be mourned by Muslims.

, Middle East Correspondent writes in Telegraph

What Alan Henning beheading video tells us about Islamic State

In one sense, Isil’s latest beheading video represents just more of the terrible same: another victim in an orange jumpsuit, the same black-clothed, black-masked executioner with a London accent, the same grotesque conclusion.

As with the three men before him, Alan Henning is forced to address the camera, then there is an aggressive speech by “Jihadi John”, or however we want to term him, and then again the next victim is paraded before us.

This video raises more questions than it answers, though, for those curious about the jihadis’ motivation.

It is much shorter, at just over a minute. It feels rushed. The speeches are not lengthy: Mr Henning just says enough to link what is about to happen to him to the vote in the House of Commons approving the bombing of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant positions in Iraq on September 26.

The jihadi’s angry threats to “Obama” are in the same style, but equally short. Only two things are given the same attention as in previous videos: the lead-in, which is always taken from western news clip, this time reporting the vote to go to war by the House of Commons last Friday, and the close-up of the body.

Alan Henning killed by IS or

Alan Hemming Killed by IS #JSIL

The #JSIL idea was created by Alternet’s Senior Writer, Max Blumenthal, and the concept expanded upon by the independent journalist Rania Khalek
Picture courtesy of & Via @ninjaaachinchin on twitter

Twitter search for #JSIL

#JSIL: Activists come up with new ISIS-inspired name for Israel
Activists Start Calling Israel #JSIL -the Jewish State of Israel in the Levant

 

 

For 15 pictures on the timeline of “Emergence of IS” and quote. SOURCE: Independent

Imams and other influential figures had joined forces to appeal to the terrorists to release the aid worker, a former taxi driver from Salford who left his job to travel to Syria to take help to victims of its civil war.

Dr Shuja Shafi, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “This reported murder is a despicable and offensive act, coming as it does on the eve of the Muslim festival of Eid Al-Adha.

“It is quite clear that the murderers of Alan Henning have no regard for Islam, or for the Muslims around the world who pleaded for his life.

“Alan was a friend of Muslims, and he will be mourned by Muslims.

, Middle East Correspondent writes in Telegraph

What Alan Henning beheading video tells us about Islamic State

In one sense, Isil’s latest beheading video represents just more of the terrible same: another victim in an orange jumpsuit, the same black-clothed, black-masked executioner with a London accent, the same grotesque conclusion.

As with the three men before him, Alan Henning is forced to address the camera, then there is an aggressive speech by “Jihadi John”, or however we want to term him, and then again the next victim is paraded before us.

This video raises more questions than it answers, though, for those curious about the jihadis’ motivation.

It is much shorter, at just over a minute. It feels rushed. The speeches are not lengthy: Mr Henning just says enough to link what is about to happen to him to the vote in the House of Commons approving the bombing of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant positions in Iraq on September 26.

The jihadi’s angry threats to “Obama” are in the same style, but equally short. Only two things are given the same attention as in previous videos: the lead-in, which is always taken from western news clip, this time reporting the vote to go to war by the House of Commons last Friday, and the close-up of the body.

Peace is “perpetual war” “Global” is imperial and “Austerity” is the imposition of extreme capitalism on the poor.

The Return Of Orwell And Big Brother’s War On Palestine, Ukraine And Truth

By John Pilger

John Pilger writes from London on the ongoing suppression of the truth by powerful vested interests.

It is only appropriate that the whole article should be quoted. But if you’d like to view the original, [please link here]

The other night, I saw George Orwells’s 1984 performed on the London stage. Although crying out for a contemporary interpretation, Orwell’s warning about the future was presented as a period piece: remote, unthreatening. It was as if Edward Snowden had revealed nothing, Big Brother was not now a digital eavesdropper and Orwell himself had never said, “To be corrupted by totalitarianism, one does not have to live in a totalitarian country.”

Acclaimed by critics, the production was a measure of our cultural and political times. When the lights came up, people were already on their way out. They seemed unmoved, or perhaps other distractions beckoned. “What a mindfuck,” said the young woman in front of me, lighting up her phone.

As advanced societies are de-politicised, the changes are both subtle and spectacular. In everyday discourse, political language is turned on its head, as Orwell prophesised in 1984. “Democracy” is now a rhetorical device.  Peace is “perpetual war”. “Global” is imperial. The once hopeful concept of “reform” now means regression, even destruction. “Austerity” is the imposition of extreme capitalism on the poor and the gift of socialism for the rich: an ingenious system under which the majority service the debts of the few.

In the arts, hostility to political truth-telling is an article of bourgeois faith.  “Picasso’s red period,” says an Observer headline, “and why politics don’t make good art.” Consider this in a newspaper that promoted the bloodbath in Iraq as a liberal crusade. Picasso’s lifelong opposition to fascism is a footnote, just as Orwell’s radicalism has faded from the prize that appropriated his name.

A few years ago, Terry Eagleton, then professor of English literature at Manchester University, reckoned that “for the first time in two centuries, there is no eminent British poet, playwright or novelist prepared to question the foundations of the western way of life”. No Shelley speaks for the poor, no Blake for utopian dreams, no Byron damns the corruption of the ruling class, no Thomas Carlyle and John Ruskin reveal the moral disaster of capitalism. William Morris, Oscar Wilde, HG Wells, George Bernard Shaw have no equivalents today. Harold Pinter was the last to raise his voice.  Among the insistent voices of consumer- feminism, none echoes Virginia Woolf, who described “the arts of dominating other people … of ruling, of killing, of acquiring land and capital”.

At the National Theatre, a new play, Great Britain, satirises the phone hacking scandal that has seen journalists tried and convicted, including a former editor of Rupert Murdoch’s News of the World. Described as a “farce with fangs [that] puts the whole incestuous [media] culture in the dock and subjects it to merciless ridicule”, the play’s targets are the “blessedly funny” characters in Britain’s tabloid press. That is well and good, and so very familiar. What of the non-tabloid media that regards itself as reputable and credible, yet serves a parallel role as an arm of state and corporate power, as in the promotion of illegal war?

The Leveson inquiry into phone hacking glimpsed this unmentionable. Tony Blair was giving evidence, complaining to His Lordship about the tabloids’ harassment of his wife, when he was interrupted by a voice from the public gallery. David Lawley-Wakelin, a film-maker, demanded Blair’s arrest and prosecution for war crimes. There was a long pause: the shock of truth. Lord Leveson leapt to his feet and ordered the truth-teller thrown out and apologised to the war criminal. Lawley-Wakelin was prosecuted; Blair went free.

Blair’s enduring accomplices are respectability itself. When the BBC arts presenter, Kirsty Wark, interviewed him on the tenth anniversary of his invasion of Iraq, she gifted him a moment he could only dream of; she allowed him to agonise over his “difficult” decision on Iraq rather than call him to account for his epic crime. This evoked the procession of BBC journalists who in 2003 declared that Blair could feel “vindicated”, and the subsequent, “seminal” BBC series, The Blair Years, for which David Aaronovitch was chosen as the writer, presenter and interviewer. A Murdoch retainer who campaigned for military attacks on Iraq, Libya and Syria, Aaronovitch fawned expertly.

Since the invasion of Iraq – the exemplar of an act of unprovoked aggression the Nuremberg prosecutor Robert Jackson called “the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole” — Blair and his mouthpiece and principal accomplice, Alastair Campbell, have been afforded generous space in the Guardian to rehabilitate their reputations. Described as a Labour Party “star”, Campbell has sought the sympathy of readers for his depression and displayed his interests, though not his current assignment as advisor, with Blair, to the Egyptian military tyranny.

As Iraq is dismembered as a consequence of the Blair/Bush invasion, a Guardian headline declares: “Toppling Saddam was right, but we pulled out too soon”. This ran across a prominent article on 13 June by a former Blair functionary, John McTernan, who also served Iraq’s CIA installed dictator Iyad Allawi. In calling for a repeat invasion of a country his former master helped destroy , he made no reference to the deaths of at least 700,000 people, the flight of four million refugees and sectarian turmoil in a nation once proud of its communal tolerance.

“Blair embodies corruption and war,” wrote the radical Guardian columnist Seumas Milne in a spirited piece on 3 July. This is known in the trade as “balance”. The following day, the paper published a full-page advertisement for an American Stealth bomber. On a menacing image of the bomber were the words: “The F-35. GREAT For Britain”. This other embodiment of “corruption and war” will cost British taxpayers £1.3 billion, its F-model predecessors having slaughtered people across the developing world.

In a village in Afghanistan, inhabited by the poorest of the poor, I filmed Orifa, kneeling at the graves of her husband, Gul Ahmed, a carpet weaver, seven other members of her family, including six children, and two children who were killed in the adjacent house. A “precision” 500-pound bomb was dropped directly on their small mud, stone and straw house, leaving a crater 50 feet wide. Lockheed Martin, the plane’s manufacturer, had pride of place in the Guardian’s advertisement.

The former US secretary of state and aspiring president of the United States, Hillary Clinton, was recently on the BBC’s cosy Women’s Hour. The presenter, Jenni Murray, presented Clinton as a beacon of female achievement. She did not remind her listeners about Clinton’s profanity that Afghanistan was invaded to “liberate” women like Orifa. She asked  Clinton nothing about her administration’s terror campaign using drones to kill women, men and children. There was no mention of Clinton’s threat while campaigning to be the first female president, to “eliminate” Iran, and nothing about her support for illegal mass surveillance and the pursuit of whistle-blowers.

Murray did ask one finger-to-the-lips question. Had Clinton forgiven Monica Lewinsky for having an affair with husband? “Forgiveness is a choice,” said Clinton, “for me, it was absolutely the right choice.” This recalled the 1990s and the years consumed by the Lewinsky “scandal”. President Bill Clinton was then invading Haiti, and bombing the Balkans, Africa and Iraq. He was also destroying the lives of Iraqi children; Unicef reported the deaths of half a million Iraqi infants under the age of five as a result of an embargo led by the US and Britain.

The children were media unpeople, just as Hillary Clinton’s victims in the invasions she supported and promoted – Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia — are media unpeople. Murray made no reference to them. A photograph of her and her distinguished guest, beaming, appears on the BBC website.

In politics as in journalism and the arts, it seems that dissent once tolerated in the “mainstream” has regressed to a dissidence: a metaphoric underground. When I began a career in Britain’s Fleet Street in the 1960s, it was acceptable to critique western power as a rapacious force. Read James Cameron’s celebrated reports of the explosion of the Hydrogen bomb at Bikini Atoll, the barbaric war in Korea and the American bombing of North Vietnam. Today’s grand illusion is of an information age when, in truth, we live in a media age in which incessant corporate propaganda is insidious, contagious, effective and liberal.

In his 1859 essay On Liberty, to which modern liberals pay homage, John Stuart Mill wrote: “Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end.” The “barbarians” were large sections of humanity of whom “implicit obedience” was required.  “It’s a nice and convenient myth that liberals are peacemakers and conservatives the warmongers,” wrote the historian Hywel Williams in 2001, “but the imperialism of the liberal way may be more dangerous because of its open-ended nature: its conviction that it represents a superior form of life.” He had in mind a speech by Blair in which the then prime minister promised to “reorder the world around us” according to his “moral values”.

Richard Falk, the respected authority on international law and the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine, once described a “a self-righteous, one-way, legal/moral screen [with] positive images of western values and innocence portrayed as threatened, validating a campaign of unrestricted political violence”. It is “so widely accepted as to be virtually unchallengeable”.

Tenure and patronage reward the guardians. On BBC Radio 4, Razia Iqbal interviewed Toni Morrison, the African-American Nobel Laureate. Morrison wondered why people were “so angry” with Barack Obama, who was “cool” and wished to build a “strong economy and health care”. Morrison was proud to have talked on the phone with her hero, who had read one of her books and invited her to his inauguration.

Neither she nor her interviewer mentioned Obama’s seven wars, including his terror campaign by drone, in which whole families, their rescuers and mourners have been murdered. What seemed to matter was that a “finely spoken” man of colour had risen to the commanding heights of power. In The Wretched of the Earth, Frantz Fanon wrote that the “historic mission” of the colonised was to serve as a “transmission line” to those who ruled and oppressed. In the modern era, the employment of ethnic difference in western power and propaganda systems is now seen as essential. Obama epitomises this, though the cabinet of George W. Bush – his warmongering clique – was the most multiracial in presidential history.

As the Iraqi city of Mosul fell to the jihadists of ISIS, Obama said, “The American people made huge investments and sacrifices in order to give Iraqis the opportunity to chart a better destiny.” How “cool” is that lie? How “finely spoken” was Obama’s speech at the West Point military academy on 28 May. Delivering his “state of the world” address at the graduation ceremony of those who “will take American leadership” across the world, Obama said, “The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it. International opinion matters, but America will never ask permission …”

In repudiating international law and the rights of independent nations, the American president claims a divinity based on the might of his “indispensable nation”. It is a familiar message of imperial impunity, though always bracing to hear. Evoking the rise of fascism in the 1930s, Obama said, “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fibre of my being.”  Historian Norman Pollack wrote: “For goose-steppers, substitute the seemingly more innocuous militarisation of the total culture. And for the bombastic leader, we have the reformer manqué, blithely at work, planning and executing assassination, smiling all the while.”

In February, the US mounted one of its “colour” coups against the elected government in Ukraine, exploiting genuine protests against corruption in Kiev. Obama’s assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland personally selected the leader of an “interim government”. She nicknamed him “Yats”. Vice President Joe Biden came to Kiev, as did CIA Director John Brennan. The shock troops of their putsch were Ukrainian fascists.

For the first time since 1945, a neo-Nazi, openly anti-Semitic party controls key areas of state power in a European capital.  No Western European leader has condemned this revival of fascism in the borderland through which Hitler’s invading Nazis took millions of Russian lives. They were supported by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), responsible for the massacre of Jews and Russians they called “vermin”. The UPA is the historical inspiration of the present-day Svoboda Party and its fellow-travelling Right Sector. Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok has called for a purge of the “Moscow-Jewish mafia” and “other scum”, including gays, feminists and those on the political left.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has ringed Russia with military bases, nuclear warplanes and missiles as part of its Nato Enlargement Project. Reneging on a promise made to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that Nato would not expand “one inch to the east”, Nato has, in effect, militarily occupied eastern Europe. In the former Soviet Caucasus, Nato’s expansion is the biggest military build-up since the Second World War.

A Nato Membership Action Plan is Washington’s gift to the coup-regime in Kiev. In August, “Operation Rapid Trident” will put American and British troops on Ukraine’s Russian border and “Sea Breeze” will send US warships within sight of Russian ports. Imagine the response if these acts of provocation, or intimidation, were carried out on America’s borders.

In reclaiming Crimea — which Nikita Kruschev illegally detached from Russia in 1954 – the Russians defended themselves as they have done for almost a century. More than 90 per cent of the population of Crimea voted to return the territory to Russia. Crimea is the home of the Black Sea Fleet and its loss would mean life or death for the Russian Navy and a prize for Nato. Confounding the war parties in Washington and Kiev, Vladimir Putin withdrew troops from the Ukrainian border and urged ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine to abandon separatism.

In Orwellian fashion, this has been inverted in the west to the “Russian threat”. Hillary Clinton likened Putin to Hitler. Without irony, right-wing German commentators said as much. In the media, the Ukrainian neo-Nazis are sanitised as “nationalists” or “ultra nationalists”. What they fear is that Putin is skilfully seeking a diplomatic solution, and may succeed. On 27 June, responding to Putin’s latest accommodation – his request to the Russian Parliament to rescind legislation that gave him the power to intervene on behalf of Ukraine’s ethnic Russians – Secretary of State John Kerry issued another of his ultimatums. Russia must “act within the next few hours, literally” to end the revolt in eastern Ukraine. Notwithstanding that Kerry is widely recognised as a buffoon, the serious purpose of these “warnings” is to confer pariah status on Russia and suppress news of the Kiev regime’s war on its own people.

A third of the population of Ukraine are Russian-speaking and bilingual. They have long sought a democratic federation that reflects Ukraine’s ethnic diversity and is both autonomous and independent of Moscow. Most are neither “separatists” nor “rebels” but citizens who want to live securely in their homeland. Separatism is a reaction to the Kiev junta’s attacks on them, causing as many as 110,000 (UN estimate) to flee across the border into Russia. Typically, they are traumatised women and children.

Like Iraq’s embargoed infants, and Afghanistan’s “liberated” women and girls, terrorised by the CIA’s warlords, these ethnic people of Ukraine are media unpeople in the west, their suffering and the atrocities committed against them minimised, or suppressed. No sense of the scale of the regime’s assault is reported in the mainstream western media. This is not unprecedented. Reading again Phillip Knightley’s masterly The First Casualty: the war correspondent as hero, propagandist and mythmaker, I renewed my admiration for the Manchester Guardian’s Morgan Philips Price, the only western reporter to remain in Russia during the 1917 revolution and report the truth of a disastrous invasion by the western allies. Fair-minded and courageous, Philips Price alone disturbed what Knightley calls an anti-Russian “dark silence” in the west.

On 2 May, in Odessa, 41 ethnic Russians were burned alive in the trade union headquarters with police standing by. There is horrifying video evidence.  The Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh hailed the massacre as “another bright day in our national history”. In the American and British media, this was reported as a “murky tragedy” resulting from “clashes” between “nationalists” (neo-Nazis) and “separatists” (people collecting signatures for a referendum on a federal Ukraine). The New York Times buried it, having dismissed as Russian propaganda warnings about the fascist and anti-Semitic policies of Washington’s new clients. The Wall Street Journal damned the victims – “Deadly Ukraine Fire Likely Sparked by Rebels, Government Says”. Obama congratulated the junta for its “restraint”.

On 28 June, the Guardian devoted most of a page to declarations by the Kiev regime’s “president”, the oligarch Petro Poroshenko.  Again, Orwell’s rule of inversion applied. There was no putsch; no war against Ukraine’s minority; the Russians were to blame for everything. “We want to modernise my country,” said Poroshenko. “We want to introduce freedom, democracy and European values. Somebody doesn’t like that. Somebody doesn’t like us for that.”

The Guardian’s reporter, Luke Harding, evidently did not challenge these assertions, or mention the Odessa atrocity, the regime’s air and artillery attacks on residential areas, the killing and kidnapping of journalists, the firebombing of an opposition newspaper and his threat to “free Ukraine from dirt and parasites”. The enemy are “rebels”, “militants”, “insurgents”, “terrorists” and stooges of the Kremlin. Summon from history the ghosts of Vietnam, Chile, East Timor, southern Africa, Iraq; note the same tags. Palestine is the lodestone of this unchanging deceit. On 11 July, following the latest Israeli, American equipped slaughter in Gaza – 80 people including six children in one family — an Israeli general writes in the Guardian under the headline, “A necessary show of force”.

In the 1970s, I met Leni Riefenstahl and asked her about her films that glorified the Nazis. Using revolutionary camera and lighting techniques, she produced a documentary form that mesmerised Germans; it was her Triumph of the Will that reputedly cast Hitler’s spell. I asked her about propaganda in societies that imagined themselves superior. She replied that the “messages” in her films were dependent not on “orders from above” but on a “submissive void” in the German population. “Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie?” I asked. “Everyone,” she replied, “and of course the intelligentsia.”

www.johnpilger.com

English: John Pilger NS head shot

English: John Pilger NS head shot (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

#Fear circus started call next 9/11

Trauma – Psychological Fear – Media Manipulation – Experts – Mind Control.

“ISIS provides worldwide security, intelligence, technology and training to government institutions and private enterprises.” Based in Washington DC in Ronald Reagan Bldg. [Link to ISIS HQ]

Original post and courtesy of UprootedPalestinians under the title: ISIS Exposed 100% as CIA

%d bloggers like this: