US Teens’ Trust In Traditional Media Deteriorating
Sputnik – 06.12.2018
Teenagers in America are trusting citizen journalists at rapidly increasing rates in recent years while 49 percent don’t trust traditional news media to report on current events fairly and accurately, according to a new poll.
Almost half of teenagers polled — 49 percent — say they don’t trust the media to convey information honestly and accurately, according to a Knight Foundation survey published Wednesday. The poll also included questions from Gallup’s “Free Expression on Campus” survey of college students.
Meanwhile, students showed a “sharp rise in their trust of citizen journalist reporting compared with traditional news sources.” While 26 percent of students trusted photos, videos and accounts posted by individuals two years ago, some 40 percent trust citizen journalists in 2018.
One data point that jumped out from the report was that 30 percent of high school students said they trusted cable TV news (CNN, Fox News and MSNBC) “a lot” in 2016, while just 18 percent said the same thing in 2018.
The share of people who trust cable TV news “some” stayed nearly the same, falling one point from 48 percent to 47 percent. The share of people who don’t trust cable TV news “too much” or “at all” shot up from 23 percent to 35 percent.
While 89 percent of students said the First Amendment right to free speech should allow people to keep voicing unpopular opinions, just 45 percent said that people keep that right when their speech is hateful. “Still, when forced to choose which is more important, students by a 5-to-1 ratio say protecting free speech is more important than protecting people from offensive speech,” the Knight Foundation’s report stated in the executive summary.
Other interesting findings include that only 1 in 4 students said that “fake news,” or made-up articles presented as news, was a “significant threat to democracy.”
Approximately one-half of students said “social media stifles expression because people block those with opposing views and because of the fear of vitriolic encounters makes people less apt to share their views,” the report said.
“We have a stereotypical image of the media as plucky truth-tellers standing up to the powerful. But in reality five gigantic corporations control 90 percent of what America sees and hears,” Alan MacLeod of Glasgow Media Group told Sputnik Thursday. “Furthermore, the media has become increasingly close to the government.”
Unz Goes Nuclear
By Israel Shamir • Unz Review • December 6, 2018
Some discoveries are just too shocking to digest. Recently I wrote of intrepid Ron Unz, the Californian maverick publisher and IT-genius, who dared to share with his readers his insights into the ideas and motifs of revisionists, or Holocaust Deniers, as their enemies call them. But this absolutely verboten topic fades into irrelevance in comparison with his most momentous discovery that has made somewhat less resonance, paradoxically, because of its magnitude. It was too big. Dark pages of the world war history or of interracial relations in 1930s, or even the whodunit of 9/11, all that is fine and very interesting, but hardly a Stop Press kind.
His other, most significant discovery is not just Stop Press, but Burn the Press Down. He discovered and proved with hard data that Jews discriminate against you to a degree you could not even guess. While you queue at the front door of the Elites, they enter freely by the back door. Chances of a smart non-Jewish “white” American kid getting there are ten-fold lower than that of a Jew. There are ten times more smart non-Jewish white American kids than smart Jewish kids, but there are more Jewish students in the Ivy League than white non-Jews. The system is biased, and not in your favour.
Once you could work your way up to success, like Henry Ford did. That was the American Dream. Not anymore. Now the only way to the best jobs, into the American elites leads through a few top colleges of the Ivy League. You can’t bypass this funnel of opportunity. “A greater and greater proportion of our financial, media, business, and political elites being drawn from a relatively small number of our leading universities” (all unattributed quotes are from the Unz essay). Unless you get the imprimatur of Harvard or Yale, your future is dim. Well-paid middle class jobs in the manufacturing sector for those lacking college degrees are scarce, and workers are being paid less now than forty years ago. When America’s richest 1 per cent has as much wealth as the bottom 95 per cent, it is winner takes all, and this winner is probably a Jew.
The elites have duties, too. The elite universities are supposed to pick the best boys and girls to lead America to its glory and greatness. By your own experience you already know that it does not happen; that the new US elites lead themselves to prosperity, while pushing you to poverty and perdition. The new elites failed you, failed your country, failed the world (always excepting the Jewish state). This failure is the main reason to explore how the elites produce their new generation.
The great surprise is that WASPs, the legendary descendants of the Founding Fathers, have lost their privilege, or even their fair chance to success. Unz proves that a smart Christian American boy of English or German parentage has ten times less chance to get into these crème-de-la-crème universities than an average Jewish boy. This very unfair way of forming tomorrow’s elites has been made possible by the sheer nepotistic networking of the universities’ admission offices. Clannishness, the Jews were (justifiably) accused of.
In actual words of Ron Unz, “Jews are enrolled at Harvard and other elite colleges at a rate some 1,000% greater than white Gentiles of similar academic performance”. One thousand per cent, OMG! Provided that these Ivy League colleges are the only sure-fire way into American elites, into best jobs and into good and important positions, this biased enrolment guarantees the Jews their position of the top dog well into next generation.
In 1920s, Jews accused the WASPs of discriminating them at university admission. The WASPs kept them under 15% of admissions. Now with Jews at the top they show what real discrimination is all about. However, there is one major difference. Then, the Jews volubly complained, now the Christians do not even dare to complain.
While the White Christian Americans kept mum, the Asians dared to speak and went to court against the colleges. The colleges have been forced to explain how they admit students. The heavily-Jewish elites of the legal system and MSM allowed this case of Asian-Americans to proceed (after many years of rejection) for a good reason: they wanted to obscure this fragrant discrimination against white Gentiles by Jews by a SEP device.
In Douglas Adams’s 1982 novel Life, the Universe and Everything, (a sequel to his Hitchhiker’s Guide), the protagonist explains: a SEP is something we can’t see, or don’t see, or our brain doesn’t let us see, because we think that it’s somebody else’s problem. That’s what SEP means. Somebody Else’s Problem. The brain just edits it out, it’s like a blind spot. SEP is the best way to hide a pink elephant in a room: people would have walked past the elephant, round it, even over it, and simply never have noticed that the thing was there.
The problem of Asian-American discrimination is an excellent SEP. Indeed, as Unz said, the Asian-Americans are discriminated at Ivy League universities (though much less than ordinary Americans). But even if they are discriminated, who cares? There are not too many of them, and they anyway manage well. Thus the real point of Unz – you are discriminated! – had been hidden.
The UNZ essay is very long with its 26,000 words, too long for average reader, so here are its salient points:
- Jews organized a clannish network to get themselves into best universities in numbers well beyond their share in population, and (!!!) well beyond their abilities;
- their fight against discrimination of Blacks has being carried at the expense of America’s white Christians. If previously discriminated minorities, be it Afro-Americans or whatever, enjoy the fruits of affirmative action (positive discrimination), it is no loss for Jews, as only Gentiles, once privileged WASPs are being screwed up.
- if once upon a time Jews had got into best colleges because they were smart, smarter than Gentile kids, now they are noticeably less smart, but they get there anyway because they are Jews.
The numbers distilled by Ron Unz out of dusty spread sheets are terrifying. You can look at the diagram he compiled, or immerse yourself in the ocean of data he provides, to get convinced: the discrimination is very real.
Unz quotes a Jewish writer who exhilarates that “the WASP demographic group which had once so completely dominated America’s elite universities and virtually all the major institutions of American life had by 2000 become a small and beleaguered minority at Harvard, being actually fewer in number than the Jews whose presence they had once sought to restrict.” For a Jewish nationalist, it is a cause for celebration. For a WASP, it is a reason to regret the unwise decisions of his fathers who tried to play a fair game with Jews and were Jew’d.
But for an average American, the answer lays in the macro picture. Do the new Jewified elites manage America better than WASPs did? Are they better shepherds? Is America-2018 (with Jews getting over 25% of all seats in the express train to better future, leaving 20% or less to WASPs) better for Americans than America-1962 with 15% of Jews and 80% of WASPs in Yale and Harvard? If you belong to 1% of Americans, the answer is positive; if you are one of the 99%, it is not.
Unz is very meticulous, very cautious in his approach. He asks an almost-insulting question: perhaps the Jews are so smart (after all, that is the kin of Einstein and Freud) that their share in the Ivy League is a result of meritocratic selection? And he provides an almost-insulting answer: no, they aren’t. There are some universities that admit strictly by merit; in these universities Jews do not exactly star. Caltech, the California Institute of Technology is one of them. The Jewish presence there is quite small; Hillel, the Jewish students’ body, gives it as zero. In reality, it is about 6 per cent, like in other merit-based competitions.
It can’t be zero, for sure. In 2003, two Palestine Solidarity activists, Adam Shapiro and Huwaida Arraf, had been booed there by pro-Israeli Jews who tried their beastly best to drive away the speakers. But there are not many Jews. There are few Jewish Olympiad winners; once they were in dozens, now there are hardly any. Altogether Jewish kids make up some six per cent of NMS, the highest-performing students’ list. This is a good result, in line with Jewish admissions into meritocratic colleges, but it is four times less than what you would expect judging by their Yale admissions. The Jewish IQ, as Unz found out, is also in line with that of their Gentile peers, and not the fabulous 110-115, as the Jewish newspapers claim. Jews are not all that smart anymore, judging by their score.
Unz explains this “sudden collapse of Jewish academic achievement” by inertia. The youngsters just do not try hard enough, in contradistinction to their fathers’ generation. They will succeed, they think, by their old-school-tie connections or through their parents’ links. Indeed when you look at the face of President Trump’s son-in-law, Mr Jared Kushner, you understand that the Nature took a nap in his generation. His parents’ generation were predators and major crooks (his father actually served two years in jail for tax evasion while obtaining his two-billion-dollar loot), but Jared’s generation could not enroll or graduate without assistance, while his political meddling made a mess of already troubled American Middle East politics.
This is the Nature way to deal with problems. Thomas Mann in his 1901 novel Buddenbrooks subtitled The Decline of a Family depicts three generations of a North German family: the first generation amasses fortune, the second maintains it, the third wastes it away in Bohemian pleasures. Smart people’s kids are usually not that smart, and have much less drive. For this reason, I wouldn’t be bothered too much by Jewish achievement of the elder generation; the young generation will waste it all right.
The problem is, there is more than one way to shine. One is to be brilliant, another is to dim others to shine in their background. In Israel, the Jews promoted plethora of laws and regulations circumcising Palestinians’ ability to compete. In the US, Jewish support of migration from underdeveloped countries and discrimination of the white American students achieve a similar effect as it lowers the average ability of non-Jewish population and allows the Jews to excel in comparison.
Unz exploration could bring enormous benefits to the American society. His diagnosis of the malady allows to cure it. In his consequent article on the subject, Unz discovered that after publication of his article, the numbers of Jewish admissions in the best colleges had been sharply readjusted downwards. What was 25% (Jews in Harvard) became 12%. But do not rejoice before time. The Jews responded with subterfuge instead of correcting action. Now they refer in their statistics only to Jews who state that they are followers of Jewish faith; and this is a dwindling lot. If one counts the students who refer to themselves as “descendants of Holocaust survivors” and speak of “my true home Israel”, we are back to 25%.
So the US Jews have learned how to perpetuate their dominance, by jealously guarding the gates of the best universities. Can it be corrected?
Jews broke the glass ceiling of admissions to Harvard by mass protests and media pressure. The Gentiles are not likely to emulate their strategy as they became even more obedient and placid as if being bred for these traits. The Americans aren’t rebellious by nature; that’s why the US is so prosperous and that’s why the lot of a working American is going from bad to worse. Yes, Scylla and Charybdis guard the passage to well-being: over-rebellious folk grows poor as revolutions diminish the treasury; on the other hand, over-docile folk grows poor because their betters oppress them fearing not for harsh response. Wise elites navigate these narrow straits cautiously like the Swedes did until 1990. Obstinate elites have to be cured by revolution, like in England or France, or by state terror, as in Russia or China.
Now you have to live with Jewified elites. Historically, the record is not encouraging. Jews are not very good in the top dog position. They are too obstinate, doctrinaire and despise the low classes to whom they feel no affinity. A single person of Jewish origin can be very good as a leader (Bruno Kreisky, the Austrian chancellor, is a good example). Some Jewish politicians are very loyal – the much-denigrated Kaganovich remained loyal to Stalin when all the rest switched to Khrushchev. But when Jews form a prominent part of elites, like it happened in a few states in different times, the result is not very good. We have the example of Israel, where the natives have nor basic rights neither citizenship, and by millions they are deprived of property and locked up in the ghetto of Gaza.
The Unz revelation demonstrates the main feature of Jews: as a rule, they are immoral (or, if you prefer, they have a different, Jewish moral, as many Rabbis claim). It gives them an advantage in some dealings but eventually courts disaster. In the Tsar’s days, the Jews complained vociferously about two things: one, Numerus Clausus, (a Jewish quota of students) and two, the Pale of Settlement, a part of the country where Jews could reside freely. They – my grandparents – sounded so sincere denouncing these evils. Nowadays, the victorious Jews established the Pale of Settlement for Gentiles in Palestine, while in the US, they fixed the low quota for previous lords of the land, and very few Jews complain about it, as I noted at length.
When it is good for Jews, it is bad for Gentiles, says the Talmud. “If you hear that Caesarea (a symbol of Gentile rule) and Jerusalem (a symbol of Jewish rule) are both in ruins or that both are flourishing peacefully, do not believe it. Believe only a report that Caesarea is in ruins and Jerusalem is flourishing or that Jerusalem is in ruins and Caesarea is flourishing”. (Talmud, Tractate Megillah 6a). History confirms it – up to a point. Jews can have it good under Gentile rule, though not as good as they would like to. But under Jewish rule, not only Gentiles, but even middle-to-low-class Jews are being screwed up, as you can observe in the Jewish state of Israel – and in the heavily Jewified US, as well. Like fire, like women, – Jews are good when under control and dangerous and destructive when they are in control.
Still, there is a free will; everyone can choose one’s own way. Nobody born in the Jewish family has to stick with Jews. The best of Jews, from Christ Apostles to Joseph Brodsky and Ron Unz always escaped it to join the people.
Israel Shamir can be reached at adam@israelshamir.net
Haley not going out with a bang after US-sponsored anti-Hamas draft fails at UNGA
US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley. © AFP / Hector Retamal
RT | December 6, 2018
The US-propelled draft resolution targeting Palestinian Hamas has failed to pass a two-thirds majority threshold at the UN General Assembly vote in what is seen is a major upset for the outgoing US envoy to the UN Nikki Hailey.
The resolution garnered 87 votes in favor and 57 against, thus falling short of securing a required two-thirds majority for the motion to pass. Thirty-six member-states abstained from the vote.
The resolution should have condemned Hamas, which has been in control of the Gaza Strip from 2007 to 2014 and again since 2016. The document was in the works for several days, as Haley was seeking to reconcile the text with the EU and major Arab nations, the US allies.
The final draft denounces Hamas “for repeatedly firing rockets into Israel and for inciting violence, thereby putting civilians at risk,” demands it and other militant groups, such as Palestinian Islamic Jihad “cease all provocative actions and violent activity,” including “airborne incendiary devices.”
Haley has put much personal effort into making sure that what could have been the first-ever UN resolution condemning Hamas found support within the 193-strong body of nations.
It was reported that she had sent letters to all UN missions, saying that the US “takes the outcome of the vote very seriously.”
However, the thinly veiled threat did not sit well with Qatar, which called a procedural vote some 20 minutes before the vote on the resolution, which arguably sealed its fate.
Qatar argued that a two-thirds majority instead of a simple majority should be required for the resolution to pass. The motion, to the dismay of the US, was narrowly approved.
The resolution could have become a swan song for the outgoing diplomat, who abruptly announced her resignation in October, an unnamed Security Council diplomat told AFP.
“She would like to go out with something,” he said.
Haley’s strenuous effort was fully supported by the Trump administration, which has been unapologetic in doing Israel’s bidding at the UN. Hailey repeatedly blasted the UN for its alleged bias against Israel, calling the organization’s treatment of the Jewish state “unfair.”
Ahead of the crucial vote, US Middle East peace envoy Jason Greenblatt attempted to drum up support for the resolution with US allies in the Arab world, reaching out to representatives of Morocco, Oman, Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Egypt and Qatar, Haaretz reported on Tuesday.
In a letter sent to the Arab missions, Greenblatt reportedly said that the Arab states “have no reason” to oppose the US-sponsored draft if they are against terrorism and for the stability in the region.
Haley has been one of the leading pro-Israel voices in the Trump administration. During her tenure as ambassador, the US quit the UN Human Rights Council, which Haley described as “a cesspool of political bias” and “a protector of human rights abusers”.
“Since its creation, the council has adopted more resolutions condemning Israel than against the rest of the world combined,” Haley charged at the time, slamming the UN body as a “self-serving organization.”
UNGA resolutions are not legally binding for members, but are highly-respected and encouraged opinions.
French Police Union Calls on Police to Join Yellow Vests’ Protests
Sputnik – 06.12.2018
After the surge in fuel prices in France, the so-called Yellow Vests movement has held protests, calling firstly on the government to lower the prices, and then also on French President Emmanuel Macron to resign. On Wednesday, the French National Assembly approved a moratorium on the planned fuel price hike.
The French labour union Vigi has called on its members working in the national police and in the Ministry of the Interior to start an indefinite strike on Saturday, joining the Yellow Vests movement. The statement was placed on Vigi’s Facebook page on Wednesday.
“The demands made by the Yellow Vests movement related to all of us. The time to organize legally and express solidarity with them for the benefit of all has come”, Vigi’s post reads. “We are being perceived as mercenaries, given bonuses for overtime work, but they cannot compensate for the decisions made by the government.”
The call is directed at “administrative, technical, scientific and state workers/cooks from the Ministry of the Interior”, according to the statement.
“Act IV” of the Yellow Vests’ protests, which is to start on Saturday, will make the government take precautions, as during the previous “Act III”, more than 260 people, including some 80 police, were injured. Earlier, French Interior Minister Christophe Castaner announced that he would reinforce security for next Saturday.
Michel Thooris, the head of the France Police labour union, said that the French government had failed to implement security measures in Paris, noting that “a majority of the French continue to back the movement”. She also highlighted that using the armed forces against civilians would indicate that France is heading towards a civil war.
The protests, which started as a movement against a hike in fuel prices, turned violent, leading to more than 600 people being injured and at least two deaths. The three-week demonstration forced the French government to drop the fuel tax rise from the 2019 budget.
“The government is ready for dialogue and is showing it because this tax increase has been dropped from the 2019 budget bill”, Edouard Philippe, the French prime minister, said on December 5.
The Nobel Peace Prize in Support of War
By Terje Maloy | OffGuardian | December 6, 2018
On December 10, the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize Award Ceremony will be held in Oslo, the capital of Norway. This analysis will try to look at how the prize fits in the bigger picture, but first, some general background is appropriate:
Norway is a member of NATO and has close ties to the United States and Great Britain. The political, economic and bureaucratic elites are firmly integrated in transatlantic networks, a nexus of economic connections, think tanks, international institutions, media and a thousand other ties that bind. They tend to identify with the liberal wing of the empire, (i.e. the Democrats, not the Republicans), but will work with any US administration. The members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee are selected by the Norwegian parliament, and the Committee is nominally independent.
Despite being considered – and where the population considers itself – a ‘peace nation’, there are few countries that have eagerly joined more wars than Norway, from the attack on Yugoslavia in 1999, Afghanistan 2001, the occupation of Iraq, Mali, Libya 2011 and the ongoing occupation of Syria. Norway spends large sums of money supporting the joint Western effort to control the rest of the world through comprador intermediaries in non-governmental organizations.
This analysis will discuss some (overlapping) points about the Nobel Peace Prize:
- The prize reinforces certain grand narratives, the most important one being We are the good, and thus have the right to decide the fate of the rest of the world.
- It creates symbols for regime change operations. It beatifies modern day ‘good natives’ complaining about cruel treatment and pleading for the West to do something to liberate them (but are often remarkably unable to see Western abuses).
- It reinforces general reasons to start wars, by making specific themes very important at the same time they are being used to justify military action.
- It reinforces the narrative that enemy fights with illegal and cruel weapons. The focus on chemical weapons, as opposed to napalm or sanctions, is one example.
- It sanctifies peace treaties that are more like unilateral surrenders, advantageous to Western imperialism and capitalist interests.
- For a bunch of peaceful people, the prize winners are remarkably eager for war and bloody interventions.
- Some other points + Conclusion.
1. WE ARE THE GOOD, AND THUS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE THE FATE OF THE REST OF THE WORLD
(Photo: / White House, Samantha Appleton /Public Domain)
The Nobel Peace Prize gets its prestige and press coverage because it reinforces several big narratives. If it should deviate too much from what the powerful want, it would be ignored. Of prime importance is the notion that we are the good, and we have a monopoly on interpreting reality and to decide what is important. (‘We’ in this context being people in the West, and by extension their governments and leaders). During the Cold War, the prize had a similar function. It would be interesting to take a closer look at it, but for practical purposes this analysis will mostly be limited the last 30 years. Once you start to notice certain basic themes, they are rather obvious. To put it pointedly, the Nobel Peace Prize tries to aid regime changes to achieve the Empire’s aims where it is possible to avoid direct war, but it will aid in confirming the narrative that our troops are good guys.
This explains why Western leaders so often get the prize. The point is creating an impression that there exists a more humane possibility within our current unjust world system. When they receive it, what they have actually done is not an issue. Hence the award to people like Jimmy Carter (winner 2002); as president he instigated several bloody covert interventions in Central-America, Africa and of course the Islamist fighters in Afghanistan, but has since then opposed direct US wars; or Al Gore (winner 2007), who when he was vice president didn’t shy away from using the military as a foreign policy tool (see part 7). The prize to Barack Obama (winner 2009) can be placed here.
But the main use of the prize is to create support in Western liberal opinion for interventions that would otherwise be naked imperialistic aggression.
2. A FOCUS FOR REGIME CHANGE OPERATIONS
Where a Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to a dissident of a non-western country, the CIA or the Pentagon (see point 3) often has a task force working on cracking the exact same country.
The winners have varying degrees of internal appeal in the targeted country, but the main purpose in choosing these people is not to boost their standing internally, but to justify attempts at regime change to Western liberal public opinion. Without the focus on these martyrs, these operations would look suspiciously like old style colonial domination.
Hence the beatification of Aung San Suu Kyi (winner 1991) coincided with a concerted campaign to get control over a recalcitrant, but very strategic country. Suu Kyi is in many ways typical of the people the Committee prefers. She is a known entity, having conspicuously strong personal connections to the former colonial power – Oxford educated, married to a British citizen, her children are British citizens, etc. Signaling in which direction her political compass was oriented, she asked the world to use the old colonial name Burma instead of Myanmar. She asked for harsh measures against her own country (for its own good) fitting hand in glove with the US strategy actually used. In fact, all means would be permissible to use against this regime imprisoning a modern day saint.
The Nobel Prize to Suu Kyi played an invaluable role in creating huge support, especially on the liberal left, for the draconian economic sanctions against an otherwise fairly obscure country. And maybe many of her Western supporters actually did believe that the US and UK could fund her with large sums of money and create entire NGO-networks for her with the expressed goal of subverting a sovereign nation’s government, and her intentions to still be pure and progressive.
Myanmar is immensely rich in natural resources and is positioned between China and the Indian Ocean, and China and India. Any significant land connection between these two 21st century great powers would have to go through Myanmar to avoid the Himalayas. It is also of great Chinese interest as a transit country to the Indian Ocean. Therefore, the country was targeted with a multi-approach regime change operation.
A massive press campaign was arranged over several decades, a plethora of NGOs financed, whilst “former” CIA-agents now turned missionaries were working with the ethnic guerilla forces to create military pressure. In the usual attempt to concentrate all opposition into a joint force, extreme right wing religious fanatics became the spearhead in this campaign. The sanctions imposed on Myanmar, precluded any economic development and doomed the population to a life of crushing poverty.
One could interpret the recent calls to take the prize back from Suu Kuy as disappointed buyers not getting what they paid for.
We can go forward to 2010, when a Chinese citizen, Liu Xiaobo, won the prize. There were no surprises for what future was envisaged for China:
It took Hong Kong 100 years to become what it is. Given the size of China, certainly it would need 300 years of colonisation for it to become like what Hong Kong is today. I even doubt whether 300 years would be enough.”
The lines between creating justification for a covert regime change operation and next step, a direct war, is blurry. But when required, the Prize Committee can step in to keep the focus of world opinion on the right narrative.
3. CREATING REASONS FOR WAR: WOMEN’S RIGHTS
Malala Yoysafzai receives the Sakharov prize © Claude Truong-Ngoc / Wikimedia Commons
In 2003, just after the blitzkrieg on Iraq and at the very height of the George Bush’s talk of continuing the offensive to a few more countries, the committee chose to give the prize to Shirin Ebadi. By beatifying an Iranian at that time, the committee very well knew that they increased the danger of war.
Ebadi is a champion of women’s rights, a recurrent theme in NATO’s efforts to justify their wars. We know that targeting women in the West with this type of messaging has been a major effort for the organization for a long time. By giving the prize to her, they in effect created support in Western (female) public opinion for a war/regime change that would kill an untold number of Iranian women and destroy the lives of the rest, a repeat on a larger scale of what happened in Iraq.
The 2018 prize went to the fight against sexual violence in war. This happens to coincide with the very image NATO wants to promote of itself – who can forget Angelina Jolie and NATO’s General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg writing a joint article in 2017 titled “Why NATO Must Defend Women’s Rights,” where they point out that “NATO has the responsibility and opportunity to be a leading protector of women’s rights” and “can become the global military leader in how to prevent and respond to sexual violence in conflict”. How convenient that the Nobel Committee shares the same view.
A more analytic approach would point out such facts that US/NATO-interventions have made the situation for women infinitely worse in places such as Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. An intervention to topple the legal government in Syria would certainly have created the same result.
In addition, a bit broader view would point out how allegedly stopping sexual violence against women has justified many wars of aggression. The stereotypes of cruel foreigners have not advanced noticeably from depictions of swarthy Spaniards groping blonde women in the Spanish-American war, to the claim that Gaddafi was handing out Viagra to mercenaries to rape women, as Susan Rice, the US Permanent Representative at UN told the Security Council. Amnesty International, later reported it had “not found any evidence or a single victim of rape or a doctor who knew about somebody being raped.”
Other notorious examples of how this has been used in war propaganda include Serbian rape camps during the Yugoslav wars. Allegations of mass rape were a key element of NATO’s propaganda campaign during the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia. Clare Short, Britain’s international development secretary, claimed that the rapes were “deliberately performed in front of children, fathers and brothers.” After the war was over, there were some retractions, including from the Washington Post, which reported that “Western accusations that there were Serb-run rape camps […] all proved to be false.”
Malala Yousafzai (winner 2014), the young Pakistani girl who became a symbol of the war against the Taliban, is another figure that fits this pattern. The indefinite occupation of Afghanistan is, among plenty of other vicarious reasons, justified by improving women’s rights. This overlooks the fact that no improvement can be made under a government installed with the help of foreign bayonets. The situation for Afghan women has not improved since the occupation, but then again, the claim was only meant to create support for the war in public opinion.
The importance of creating the perception of fighting for women’s rights has long been realized in military circles.
An internal CIA-document from 2010 (a few years before Malala received the prize from the Nobel Institute for her struggle against the Taliban), published by WikiLeaks, discusses how to best market the war in Afghanistan, To show how similar the Nobel Committee and the military/intelligence apparatus think, it is worth quoting the following passage:
Afghan women could serve as ideal messengers in humanizing the ISAF role in combating the Taliban because of women’s ability to speak personally and credibly about their experiences under the Taliban, their aspirations for the future, and their fears of a Taliban victory. Outreach initiatives that create media opportunities for Afghan women to share their stories with French, German, and other European women could help to overcome pervasive skepticism among women in Western Europe toward the ISAF mission.
4. THE ENEMY FIGHTS WITH ILLEGAL AND INHUMANE WEAPONS, AND IT IS IMPERATIVE TO STOP THEM
By highlighting certain themes, in this case ‘illegal weapons’, they reinforce the narrative in Western public opinion that certain things are very urgent and real problems, when in fact they are of relatively minor significance.
Poison gas is a clear example. The OPCW won the prize in 2013. Given the general situation in the Middle East, several million dead in Iraq after the US invasion and at least 400.000 dead in the covert invasion of Syria, gas is a minor factor, and even if we take the frequent claims of ‘gas massacres’ at face value (which of course we shouldn’t), is only responsible for an infinitesimal fraction of these dead.
But to reinforce a false narrative, this focus has been invaluable. The prize creates acceptance for the narrative that gas is a uniquely important and evil weapon, where it is fully justified to do anything necessary, including attacking countries, to stop the possible use of it. At the moment of writing this, Nov 24, 2018, the US just accused Iran of hiding a chemical weapons program.
Some weapons that are killing far more people in far more gruesome ways than poison gas, like napalm, would never be put on this list. And we could compare gas to sanctions, the West’s favorite and most effective weapon of mass destruction, killing the weakest, the sick, children and old people slowly, while destroying entire peoples’ right to a decent life. No other or weapon of mass destruction has killed as many people since WW2.
5. SANCTIFYING PEACE TREATIES THAT ARE NEGOTIATED SURRENDERS TO WESTERN INTERESTS
Yasser Arafat receives the prize in 1994, together with Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin CC BY-SA 3.0 File:Flickr – (GPO)
The most noticeable feature when the prize goes to creators of peace treaties, is that the treaties are more like a negotiated surrender than a just peace.
Colombia’s president Juan Manuel Santos (winner 2016) received the prize for victoriously having put the finishing touches to a long US-led counter-insurgency campaign against leftist guerilla forces. Now the reactionary oligarchy has a safe grip on the country, and can continue their neoliberal agenda, which isn’t that different from the old reactionary order. The death squads murdering leftist and human rights activist continue their activities with impunity.
The country had an extremely tarnished image in human rights issues and needed a quick touch-up to make it palatable. The most conspicuous thing the 2016-award is that the president got the prize just before Colombia became a global partner of NATO. The planning of the PR-requirements for this to happen smoothly must have been already well under way when the prize winner was decided. Remember the prize is directed at Western public opinion, and has little to do with an actual just peace in Colombia.
Yasser Arafat (co-winner 1993) got the prize so he would be tied to a peace plan with a chimerical two-state solution the Israeli side had no intention of honoring. The peace offer didn’t even include a stop in construction of Israeli settlements. No clearer signal of Israeli intentions could have been given. This is a continuation of the joint prize to Sadat and Begin in 1978, for the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, where Israel succeeded in making a separate peace with the biggest Arab country, and could thereafter concentrate on consolidating its grip on the West Bank.
While Nelson Mandela (co-winner 1994) undoubtedly was a worthy winner, the transition deal the ANC negotiated for South Africa only transferred formal political power, and left unjust economic power structures intact. The assets of multinational companies were guaranteed, and the neoliberal policies implied in the deal doomed the large majority of the population to continued poverty.
Michail Gorbachev (winner 1990) got the prize for a unilateral and wholesale surrender of every Soviet position, both economic and political; he didn’t even keep them as bargaining cards. Trusting Western oral promises, this naiveté is unprecedented in a leader of a great power. His bad decisions made a managed transition to a mixed system impossible and abandoned the former socialist states to Western looting and a social collapse they still haven’t recovered from. No wonder he still is so popular in the West that gave him the medal as a sign of appreciation.
Finnish Martti Ahtisaari got the prize in 2008, «for his efforts on several continents and over more than three decades, to resolve international conflicts». This is very true. Left out is what should be added to the sentence, to resolve international conflicts – as a total Western victory.
Ahtisaari is directly linked to the creation of the NATO-protectorate of Kosovo. By 1999, NATO had decided to splinter Yugoslavia one more time. A 78 day aerial bombing campaign had little effect, so they sent in the diplomats. It was suggested that an envoy from a ‘neutral’ country would be more efficient. Here is how Ahtisaari handled the situation, telling the Serbs what ‘we’ would do (my emphasis):
Ahtisaari opened the meeting by declaring, “We are not here to discuss or negotiate,” […]. Ahtisaari says that Milosevic asked about the possibility of modifying the plan, to which he replied, “No. This is the best that Viktor and I have managed to do. You have to agree to it in every part.” [..] As Milosevic listened to the reading of the text, he realized that the “Russians and the Europeans had put us in the hands of the British and the Americans.”
Milosevic took the papers and asked, “What will happen if I do not sign?” In answer, “Ahtisaari made a gesture on the table,” and then moved aside the flower centerpiece. Then Ahtisaari said, “Belgrade will be like this table. We will immediately begin carpet-bombing Belgrade.” Repeating the gesture of sweeping the table, Ahtisaari threatened, “This is what we will do to Belgrade.” A moment of silence passed, and then he added, “There will be half a million dead within a week.”
The Serbians signed the treaty.
6. NOT A PEACEFUL VERY BUNCH OF PEOPLE
US Marine Corps tank in Baghdad, 2003 (Photo: USMC/ Public Domain)
For recipients of a peace prize, a remarkable number of them support wars.
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a war of aggression under the trumped up pretext of disarming Iraq of Weapons of mass destruction. It was a blatant breach of both international law and the United Nations Charter. What did the Nobel Prize Winners think of it?
Here we have Elie Wiesel (winner 1986): “I now know I was wrong, but better that than to have stood idly by”.
Jose Ramos-Horta (winner 1996) claimed approvingly that the only truly effective means of pressure on the Iraqi dictator [is] the threat of the use of force.
Liu Xiaobo (winner 2010) was clear, the “decision by President Bush is right!”. But then again, Liu had the remarkable opinion that “the major wars that the US became involved in are all ethically defensible,” including the wars in Afghanistan and Vietnam.
Former vice president Al Gore (winner 2009) had argued aggressively in favor of war in Iraq in 1991 and 1998, Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1998, and believed the 2003 Iraq war was legal based on earlier UN resolutions.
The Cold War winner Lech Walesa (1983) was an opponent of the invasion, but at least he knew where to put the blame: “It’s not the United States that is to blame for the war, but rather the EU, and in particular Germany and France. They knew the war was coming and they failed to prevent it.”
The Dalai Lama (winner 1989) was wily enough to hedge his bets, but decidedly did not condemn the war: “it’s too early to say, right or wrong”, He also supported the US/NATO military intervention in Afghanistan and the attack on Yugoslavia.
There is a similar level of support among prize winners for a direct intervention in the ‘civil’ war in Syria, a US/NATO regime change plan on the drawing board for at least 10 years before it started. The push for a no-fly zone in Syria on a Libyan model, which could then be used as a fig leaf for a full-scale assault, was immense for several years. What did the Nobel Prize winners think of this possibility?
(Keep in mind that the ‘action’ they call for, can only be either an aerial bombing or ground troops.)
Kailash Satyarthi (winner 2014) did not say anything about the fact that it was the 3 Western powers on the Security Council which started this war by spending billions of dollars arming and financing armed Islamist gangs. Stopping this support would seem to be the obvious way to stop the war, but instead we get: “The UN Security Council (UNSC) has the military power to bring this unceasing genocide to a halt.”
His co-winner Malala Yousafzai who seems to have envisaged a similar future for Syria as for Afghanistan, a Western intervention: “When I look at Syria, I see the Rwandan genocide. When I read the desperate words of Bana Alabed in Aleppo, I see Anne Frank in Amsterdam… We must act. The international community must do everything they can to end to this inhumane war”
This was echoed by former UN-leader Kofi Annan (winner 2001). Defining Aleppo as only the small part of the city occupied by Islamist gangs, he called for ‘action’. How this ‘action’ would differ from what he describes, is not clear: “The assault on Aleppo is an assault on the whole world. When hospitals, schools and homes are bombed indiscriminately, killing and maiming hundreds of innocent children, these are acts that constitute an attack on our shared, fundamental human values. Our collective cry for action must be heard, and acted upon, by all those engaged in this dreadful war.”
This wish was supported by Medecins sans Frontiers, recipient of the 1999 Nobel Peace Prize. It was the first to report the alleged gas attack in Ghouta on 21. August 2013, which the Obama-administration wanted to use as a pretext for a military assault. As it admitted, the MSF’s decision to issue a press release on the incident—which had not taken place in an MSF hospital, but in its “silent partner” facilities in rebel-controlled areas—was highly political.
MSF was well aware that their announcement of chemical weapons use would be immediately seized upon by the US to claim that Syrian President Assad had crossed a red line, and to start a bombing campaign.
The organization was here true to its roots, as the civilian part in the French military/intelligence effort to support an independent state in the oil producing parts of Nigeria, in the Biafran war of independence in 1967-1970.
Amnesty International, (winner 1977) was not much better, with its call for unspecified ‘action’: “The international community’s catastrophic failure to take concrete action to protect the people of Syria has allowed parties to the conflict, most notably the Syrian government, to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity with complete impunity, often with assistance of outside powers, particularly Russia… the international community had said ‘never again’ after the government devastated Eastern Aleppo with similar unlawful tactics. But here we are again.”
Anyway, Amnesty has a soft spot for endless NATO-interventions. In 2012, after 11 years of dismal occupation, the organization paid for advertising posters in the US applauding NATO’s actions in Afghanistan — “Keep the progress going”, purportedly doing something for women’s rights.
Tawakkol Abdel-Salam Karman is a Yemeni journalist and human rights activist that won the prize in 2009 wanted ‘protection’, writing: “Instead of protecting residents in Aleppo from brutalities of Russia, Iran and Bashar Al Assad’s regime, the world tended to mediate to provide safe corridors for the displacement of civilians,” adding, “these also are partners in crime.”
Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos (2016) voiced support for the missile attacks on Syria in March 2018.
Such bellicosity (or just as often, coy bellicosity) is nothing new in the type of people selected as winners. Henry Kissinger (winner 1973) was the most infamous war hawk to win the prize during the Cold War, but as long as it was the right side doing the fighting, plenty of others identified with this one sided world view. We can recognize all the themes mentioned above in Michael Parenti’s description of the 1975 Peace Prize winner:
Andrei Sakharov was a darling of the U.S. press, a Soviet dissident who regularly sang praises to corporate capitalism. Sakharov lambasted the U.S. peace movement for its opposition to the Vietnam War. He accused the Soviets of being the sole culprits behind the arms race and he supported every U.S. armed intervention abroad as a defense of democracy. Hailed in the west as a «human rights advocate,» Sakharov never had an unkind word for the horrific human rights violations perpetrated by the fascist regimes of faithful U.S. client states, including Pinochet’s Chile and Suharto’s Indonesia, and he aimed snide remarks at the «peaceniks» who did. He regularly attacked those in the West who opposed U.S. repressive military interventions abroad.
7. Some other points + Conclusion
You don’t have to be an prop for US/NATO power projection to win the prize, but it helps.
The prize was originally intended to be given to the person who has done most to foster peace between nations. In a subtle twist, in many cases it has changed to banning aspects of warfare, barely ever addressing war itself. Broaching such a subject honestly would be impossible without addressing the elephant in the room, US/Western imperialism. The award has had many winners who are variants of this year’s theme, sexual violence in war (which also touches on point 3, the NATO-narrative of defense of women). The focus here is on a more civilized form of war, not abolishing war as such as a means of settling disputes.
No one (apart from some military brass) is actually pro-landmines, but the Peace prize to the Campaign Against Land Mines in 1997 coincided with the increased Western interventions in places where these weapons would be a hindrance to the success of the occupation It was not in the interest of NATO forces to have their opponents using these ‘poor man’s weapons’, creating the casualties so feared by the military in modern wars, which again might increase opposition at home to war. The coalition suffered most of their casualties from IEDs, a sort of land mine, in Iraq, while having limited use of mines themselves.
There is a certain unpredictability as to who the prize will be awarded to, making it not as obviously beholden to the immediate needs of the powerful, even though the long term trend is clear. For example, there has been no Russian winner for quite a while now, and the White Helmets have not yet got the award, maybe as they are too obviously only a PR-front.
When Jean-Paul Sartre declined the Nobel Prize in Literature, he said that the prize ‘is for Western writers or Eastern rebels’. On a similar note, we might say that the Nobel Peace Prize is for Western elites or Eastern rebels.
That the selection of winners conforms to US views does not mean that there is a direct influence, although some recommendations to the Committee probably weigh heavier than others. Rather this pattern is a sign of how well socialized the Norwegian Nobel Committee members are in the transatlantic world view, where ‘our’ requirements override any genuine wish for peace.
Ex-Pentagon Analyst: US INF Ultimatum Part of Plan to Boost Nuke Arms Industry
Sputnik – 06.12.2018
WASHINGTON – The Trump administration’s decision to suspend its obligations under the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty is designed to open the way for a new tidal wave of spending to satiate the US military-industrial complex, former Defense Department analyst Chuck Spinney told Sputnik.
“The [US] Military-Industrial —Congressional Complex (MICC) [is] driving the nuclear arms race that is now locking the world into a new Cold War while lowering the threshold for a hot nuclear war,” Spinney said.
US leaders want to use the withdrawal from the INF to launch even more nuclear weapons armament programs, Spinney suggested.
“What is missing from this reincarnation of past Strangelovian madness? In terms of offensive capabilities, two stand out: A new ground launched cruise missile (GLCM) and a nuclear follow-on to the Pershing II medium range ballistic missile — precisely the weapons banned by the INF treaty,” Spinney said.
However this massive nuclear modernization program was setting in motion a money stream that would continue through 2060 or perhaps even 2080, Spinney warned.
“Jobs and money will be flooding into over 400 of congressional districts as the political engineers in the MICC target the political vulnerabilities of the system of checks and balances in the United States and those of our allies with a torrent of contracts and subcontracts,” he said.
From the Russian perspective, Spinney added, the United States is sharpening its nuclear sword while strengthening is nuclear shield, which is a formula for war-fighting.
US policymakers believed they could increase the military options for fighting and winning a nuclear war by increasing the precision of their capabilities to execute and control the escalation of limited nuclear strikes, Spinney explained.
Such thinking, he added, is a return to the discredited nuclear war-fighting theories of the 1970s.
“Only this time we are sleepwalking into the same old mad theory of nuclear war-fighting without a major strategy debate,” he concluded.
The INF Treaty was signed by the Soviet Union and the United States in 1987, and prohibited either country from possessing, producing or testing ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of between 300 to 3,300 miles.
On Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said if the United States develops weapons currently banned by the INF, Moscow would follow suit. The State Department on Tuesday said US INF obligations will be suspended in 60 days unless Russia comes into compliance. Putin said the United States has still provided zero evidence to support allegations of noncompliance.
Mattis Tells All Without Any Evidence
By Philip M. GIRALDI | Strategic Culture Foundation | 06.12.2018
The insanity runs deep in Washington but it has also briefly surfaced at Simi Valley in California at the Reagan National Defense Forum, which ran through last weekend. United States Secretary of Defense James “Mad Dog” Mattis was the keynote speaker on Saturday. He had a few interesting things to say, the most remarkable of which was the assertion that Russia had again sought to interfere in the 2018 midterm elections, which were completed last month.
Mattis, a Marine general who is sometimes considered to be the only adult in the room when the White House national security team meets, claimed that the bilateral relationship between Washington and Moscow had “no doubt” deteriorated still further due to the Russian activity, which he described as the Kremlin “try[ing] again to muck around around in our elections last month, and we are seeing a continued effort along those lines” with Russian President Vladimir Putin making “continued efforts to try to subvert democratic processes that must be defended. We’ll do whatever is necessary to defend them.”
Mattis did not address President Donald Trump’s cancellation of a meeting with Putin at the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina, a move which he reportedly supported. The cancellation was reportedly based on what has been described as an act of aggression committed by the Russian military against three Ukrainian naval vessels seeking to transit the Kerch Strait, which since the annexation of Crimea has been completely controlled by Moscow. The Ukrainians were aware of the Russian protocols for transiting through the area and chose to ignore them to create an incident, possibly as part of a plan to disrupt the Trump-Putin discussions. If that is so, they were successful.
Mattis was somewhat taciturn relating to his accusation regarding Moscow’s meddling. He provided absolutely no evidence that Russia had been interfering in the latest election and there have been no suggestions from either federal or state authorities that there were any irregularities involving foreigners. There was, however, considerable concern over possible ballot and voting manipulation at state levels carried out by the major political parties themselves, suggesting that if Mattis is looking for subversion of democratic processes he might start looking a lot closer to home.
The U.S. government has issued a general warning that “Americans should be aware that foreign actors — and Russia in particular — continue to try to influence public sentiment and voter perceptions through actions intended to sow discord.” Law enforcement and intelligence agencies have reportedly been working with private sector internet social networking companies, to include Twitter and Facebook, to shut down Russian and Iranian accounts in attempt to forestall any interference in either the campaigning or voting processes. Some Russians have even been indicted in absentia based on flimsy evidence but as they are in Russia they cannot be tried. One Russian student, Maria Butina, is still in jail in Virginia based on conflicting and flimsy evidence and it is not clear when she will be able to defend herself in court.
Beyond the general anti-Russia hysteria being encouraged by the media and congress, there are a number of problems with the Mattis assertion. First of all, beyond the fact that no actual evidence has been presented, it is irrational to assume that Russian intelligence services would waste their effort and burn their resources to attempt to accomplish absolutely nothing. Russia was not on the ballot last month and no candidates were running on any platform that would benefit Moscow in the slightest. To get caught “mucking around” would invite more sanctions and justify an increasingly hostile response from Washington, hardly a price that Putin would be willing to pay for little or nothing tangible.
Second, the intense investigations being carried out by the Robert Mueller Special Counsel’s office have to this point developed no information suggesting that Russia did anything in 2016 beyond the low-level probing and manipulating that every major intelligence agency does routinely to get a window into what an adversary is up to. To be sure, several Team Trump associates will likely be going to jail, but their crimes so far have consisted of perjury or tax fraud. Some, like former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen are seeking desperately to find a way to implicate the president in some grander scheme, but if there is anything actually there it has yet to be identified to the public.
Third, based on the evidence produced so far, the only two countries that may have cooperated with either Trump or the Deep State to influence the results of the 2016 election are Israel, which sought Trump intercession at the United Nations, and Britain, which may have engaged in a plot by the British intelligence and security services to conspire with CIA Director John Brennan to elect Hillary Clinton.
So, there we go again. Another vague accusation against Russia to convince the American public that there is a powerful enemy out to get us. And lest there be any shortage of enemies Mattis also mentioned always dangerous Iran, saying “… we cannot deny the threat that Iran poses to all civilized nations.” And, by the way, Mattis in his speech strongly supported an increased “defense” budget to deal with all the threats, saying somewhat obscurely that “Fiscal solvency and strategic solvency can co-exist.” Sure. In the wonderful world of Washington, more money can fix anything.
US’s INF Move Could Prove Fatal for Arms Control Treaties – Int’l Law Assoc.
Sputnik – December 6, 2018
WASHINGTON – The US ultimatum to leave the INF Treaty within 2 months if fulfilled threatens the survival of all such arrangements including the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), Director of the UN Office of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms, John Burroughs, told Sputnik.
“Final US withdrawal from the INF Treaty threatens to unravel all arms control arrangements, and the stability and predictability they provide between the United States and Russia,” Burroughs said. “The INF Treaty… was a foundation for subsequent agreements on reduction of long-range nuclear forces. If that foundation is removed, it is unclear whether New START and control and reduction of long-range nuclear forces generally can be sustained.”
Burroughs pointed out, however, that Washington and Moscow still have time to hold talks to save the treaty because a US withdrawal would not take effect until six months after the ultimatum period.”
This all means that there is a long period — eight months — for the US and Russia to resolve their disputes about claimed violations of the INF Treaty,” he said. “And it can be done, through negotiations and transparency measures, [and] visits in person to the installations in question.”
What was really needed was the creation of a multilateral process for reductions of nuclear arms leading to zero, Burroughs advised, although setting up such a mechanism would be even more challenging.
The International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms is an international non-governmental organization headquartered in Berlin. It was founded in 1988 and seeks to build and strengthen international legal efforts to ban the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons.
The INF Treaty, signed by the Soviet Union and the United States in 1987, bans ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with a range of between 300 to 3,300 miles. The New START Treaty, which expires in 2021, limits the number of deployed intercontinental and submarine-launched ballistic missiles, nuclear-armed bombers, and nuclear warheads.
On Tuesday, the State Department said it would suspend US obligations under the INF in 60 days unless Russia comes into compliance. On Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin told reporters the United States has still provided zero evidence to support allegations of violating the accord. Putin also said if Washington wants to develop weapons banned under the INF treaty, Moscow would follow suit.
See Also:
Russia in Full Compliance With INF Treaty, US Side Knows Well About It – Moscow
Ex-Pentagon Analyst: US INF Ultimatum Part of Plan to Boost Nuke Arms Industry
Featured Video
AUTISM IN THE CROSSHAIRS OF THE TRANS MOVEMENT
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
The Curious Case of the Missing Professor Mifsud
By Johanna Ross | August 13, 2019
In The Times newspaper on July 30th, appeared a short and succinct article, easily missed were it not for its intriguing headline: ‘Missing academic Joseph Mifsud at heart of Mueller investigation’. The academic in question, one may or may not have heard of, depending on the extent to which one is reliant on mainstream media for keeping abreast of the news. But anyone attempting to keep up with the complex and murky world of the Mueller investigation, may be familiar with the name of this mysterious and elusive figure.
For it is none other than Professor Mifsud, affiliated with both the Universities of Stirling and East Anglia in the UK, that was identified by the FBI as being the source of the information that Russia had ‘dirt’ on Hillary Clinton. And intriguingly, the same Professor Mifsud who disappeared in October 2017 and has been missing ever since.
It was in April 2016 that Mifsud, who was qualified in education but somehow managed to find his way into the world of international diplomacy (becoming director of the London Academy of Diplomacy in 2012), reportedly met George Papadopoulos, foreign policy advisor to the Trump campaign, where he is said to have told him that the Russian government had ‘dirt on Hillary Clinton’. This information was then allegedly passed by Papadopoulos to the Australian High Commissioner in London, before being repeated to US authorities; that effectively Papdopoulos had known about the DNC hack prior to it being carried out. In short, Mifsud was the key to the whole ‘Russiagate’ scandal. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
papasha408 on Zelensky will not attend the N… michael on Zelensky will not attend the N… tonyopmoc on “Cool the Mark Out”: How the m… Bill Francis on The not-so-heroic lockdown… Best Johnd on The Media Lied Repeatedly Abou… Balthasar Gerards on “Cool the Mark Out”: How the m… charles allan on Turn Off, Don’t Automate, the… roberthstiver on The Union State Expects That T… papasha408 on Insisting on “demilitarized zo… Vlad the Skewerer on Weapon US gave Ukraine spotted… aletho on As Europe founders, is common… charles allan on CEO Of Top Carbon Credit Certi…
Aletho News- WHO Initiative Would ‘Promote Desired Behaviors’ by Surveilling Social Media
- The Ursula von der Leyen Affair
- CIA Vets: FBI Withholds Damning Evidence on Bidens Prior to Presidential Election, Again
- CIA hacked iPhones of diplomats in Russia – FSB
- US Advocacy Group Releases Emails Challenging Biden’s Statements on Son’s Connections
- State Department Defends “Disinformation” Grant That Funded Online Blacklists
- BBC Verify?
- Zelensky will not attend the NATO summit unless his ultimatum is met – FT
- FBI Refuses To Hand Over Communications About Twitter-Related Censorship
- The not-so-heroic lockdown critic
- If Americans Knew
- New 3rd political party “No Labels” seeks middle ground – except on Israel
- Is the United States Moving Its Capital to Jerusalem?
- NYT downplays Palestinian civilian deaths, political motivation for Gaza attack
- What is behind the latest Israel-Gaza violence?
- What’s standing in the way of an Israel-Gaza ceasefire? Israel wants to keep breaking int’l law
- Israeli Missiles Kill Eight Palestinians, Including A Child, In Gaza
- Israel closes Gaza crossings; possible serious deterioration of humanitarian conditions
- Israel has killed 20 journalists with impunity since 2000
- Israel attacks Gaza, killing 15 Palestinians, including women and children
- Khader Adnan’s death & Israel’s decades of despotic military orders
- Brownstone Institute
- New CDC Director Is Another Lockdowner
- An Ideology and Agenda of Estrangement
- The Fraying of the Liberal International Order
- A Myth-Making Toolkit from the Volcano’s Shadow
- The Deplatforming of the “Disinformation Dozen”: More Coverage From Tracy Beanz
- Complying, Not Defying: Twitter and the EU Censorship Code
- Ireland’s Assault on Free Speech
- The Economics of Lockdown Panics
- Misinformation Is a Word We Use to Shut You Up
- My Official Apology to the New York Post
- Richie Allen
- UK Health Security Agency Launches High Temperature Alert System
- Free Speech Champion Vows To Defend All Views
- Pesticide Firms Hid Brain Toxicity Studies From EU Regulators
- Schoolgirl With Terminal Cancer Was Told It Might Be Stress
- Amazon to Pay $25 Million Over Alexa Privacy Violations
- Labour Would Force Landowners To Sell Below Market Value To Boost Housebuilding
- Couple Fear Wedding Cancellation If Hotel Is Used To House 300 Asylum Seekers
- Scores Of Primary Schools At Risk Of Closure Due To Birth Rate Decline
- Sunak Backs Feminist In Oxford Free Speech Row
- Top Chinese Scientist Won’t Rule Out Covid Lab Leak
- Not A Lot Of People Know That
- Met Office Announce Water Scarcity Alert After Wet Spring!
- Ireland’s mooted cow massacre is a warning to net zero Britain
- Dominic Lawson: Lower tax revenue and higher CO2 emissions: What Starmer’s financially illiterate plan to stop North Sea drilling would really mean for Britain
- What the media won’t tell you about . . . hurricanes–Roger Pielke Jr
- Labour plans to block new North Sea oil fields could cost Scotland £6bn
- Telegraph’s EV Fan Gets A Shock!
- Bournemouth’s Spate Of “Deliberate” Heath Fires
- Yet Another Coffee Scare
- Labour Will Block New North Sea Oil & Gas
- Britain’s Weather A Hundred Years Ago
- No Tricks Zone
- Thwaites ‘Doomsday’ Glacier Narrative Collapses…Total Melt Raises Sea Levels 1-2 mm, Not 3048 mm
- Expert Prof. Gerd Ganteför Calls For More Studies On The Regional Climate Impact By Wind Turbines
- New Study Destroys ‘Doomsday Glacier’ Narrative…Today’s Ice 8 Times 𝑇ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑟 Than Last 8000 Years
- Cold Grips Globally: Alaska’s 4th Cold Winter… Record Cold Down Under…UK’s Delayed Spring…
- Aarhus University Researchers Find Arctic Warmer, Ice-Free In Summertime 10,000 Years Ago!
- Professors: The Entire Fossil Fuel Industry Must Be ‘Euthanized’ To Save Humanity From Warmth
- German Green Parliamentarian Shocks The Nation…Couldn’t Even Name First German Empire Chancellor!
- Another New Study Shows The Siberian Arctic Is Warmer When CO2 Is Low And Colder As CO2 Rises
- German Greens In Crisis, Plummet 40% In Opinion Polls As Anger Mounts Over Bans, Scandals
- Germany’s Growing List Of Bans: Next Up: Wood Stoves And Heating With Wood!
Aletho News 