Dual Loyalty as Racism
By Eve Mykytyn | March 8, 2019
The US House of Representatives just passed a resolution that declared, “whether from the political right, center, or left, bigotry, discrimination, oppression, racism, and imputations of dual loyalty threaten American democracy and have no place in American political discourse.” The key words in this resolution are “dual loyalty” which make clear that this otherwise banal condemnation of racism was made in direct response to Representative Ilhan Omar’s controversial statement: “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says that it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”
Apparently, the House resolution was a disappointment to some. The New York Times reports that this ‘all-inclusive’ approach was criticized for not “solely condemn[ing] anti-Semitism.” Representative Ted Deutch asked “Why are we unable to singularly condemn anti-Semitism? Why can’t we call it anti-Semitism and show we’ve learned the lessons of history?”
It is bizarre that Mr. Deutch seemingly objects to condemning racism per se. Would Mr. Deutch prefer that the House pass separate resolutions condemning prejudice against each of the ever growing list of identity groups? The House would be so busy debating these resolutions that they would accomplish nothing else, although admittedly, that might be a positive outcome.
Omar has not retracted her statements. In response to criticism from representative Nita Lowy, Omar tweeted, “I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.”
Omar’s point has been substantiated by the reaction it has provoked. Omar claimed that accusations of anti-Semitism tend to be used to silence critics of Israel. In response, she was called a “Jew hater.”
Representative Juan Vargas tweeted, “It is disturbing that Rep. Omar continues to perpetuate hurtful anti-Semitic stereotypes that misrepresent our Jewish community. Additionally, questioning support for the U.S.-Israel relationship is unacceptable.”
Omar is condemned for criticizing dual loyalty by those who insist upon loyalty to Israel. As journalist Jordan Weisman noted, “If Israel’s most devoted U.S. backers are really so concerned over dual loyalty smears, maybe they should think more carefully about how they’re encouraging them. “
Bolton’s Act of Sabotage
By David Macilwain | American Herald Tribune | March 8, 2019
Across the Western world, there has been discussion and argument and consternation over the apparent failure to make progress on disarmament at the recent talks in Hanoi. Examination of the reasons for that failure has been replaced by speculation about the DPRK’s next move and suspicions about its motives, without any similar skepticism or doubts about the US intent and strategy. But such speculation is entirely misguided, and only possible because of ignorance of one key detail in the discussions in Hanoi.
Thanks mostly to the efforts of Australia’s former ambassador to South Korea and Vietnam, Richard Broinowski, whose diplomatic contacts in Canberra relayed inside information about the discussions, the alarming truth on why the talks suddenly fell apart was revealed to the SBS TV network, and to its listeners in the evening news broadcast on March 1st.
While media around the world, apparently including those not allied to the US, broadcast the press briefing by Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo laying the blame on North Korea for demanding all the sanctions be lifted, only SBS listeners got to hear what really happened, and thenceforth to see things in an entirely different light. As Richard Broinowski explained several days later writing on John Menadue’s influential blog Pearls and Irritations :
… “a well-informed senior Asian diplomatic source in Canberra has added another reason for the Summit’s breakdown: that Trump’s national security adviser, John Bolton, persuaded Trump to add another demand, without notice, that led to North Korean refusal and a premature end to the summit even before negotiations had begun.”
“The Asian diplomat recalled that John Bolton had been scheduled to visit Canberra at the end of February. But the visit was cancelled when he suddenly went to Hanoi instead, whether at Trump’s directive or on his own initiative being unclear. The diplomat’s understanding is that Bolton suggested to Trump that as well as demanding a complete inventory of North Korea’s nuclear weapons and delivery systems, Trump should also request details of the country’s chemical and biological arsenal, a demand Kim found unexpected, and for which he was unprepared, and refused. Trump then broke off the meeting before substantive negotiations had even begun.”
We may all too easily forget the anticipation before these crucial talks between Trump and Kim Jong Un, where it at least looked possible that Trump might “do a deal” on a basis that the North Koreans could accept. The early signs were more than promising, with Kim Jong Un assuring that he would not have been there had he not sought progress on denuclearisation, and Trump prepared to take him at his word. While “substantive negotiations” had not begun, the North Koreans had already suggested they would make very significant concessions in return for the lifting of some sanctions and some other commitments by the US to reduce tensions – “security guarantees” in other words.
It’s worth noting in this context that Sergei Lavrov, speaking at a parallel meeting of the Valdai Club in Ho Chi Minh city had stated quite clearly that the US must make significant concessions, rather than demanding that the DPRK completely denuclearise before lifting sanctions. As always it’s worth reading Lavrov’s wide-ranging and straightforward remarks on the poor state of the world and the destabilizing and destructive role being played by the US.
The necessity for lifting some sanctions on the DPRK is further emphasized by the news that their food production this year is severely restricted by the worst climatic conditions for a decade, making food imports and relief urgent. Their demands for sanctions relief in Hanoi concerned this issue rather than anything connected with the nuclear program.
The truth of the story of Bolton’s demands, which look very much like a planned act of sabotage, is beyond doubt and endorsed in statements from South Korea’s former unification minister Chong Se-Hyun published in Korean newspapers and reported elsewhere. The Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian also covered the story on the following Monday, but this was a temporary blip on their normally unchallenging sympathy for the official US viewpoint. Australia’s other State broadcaster the ABC, however, made no mention of it, simply repeating Trump’s cover-up claim on the sanctions removal.
These media along with their Western partners in officially approved disinformation are now once again adding to the rumor mill on “North Korea’s ongoing nuclear threat” with suspect stories about the renewal of a missile launching site. Satellite photos taken only hours after the failure of the talks claim to show such activity. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute, which has close links to government, has meanwhile warned that moves to scale down the annual war games proposed belatedly as a “goodwill gesture” by the US, are “dangerous and will embolden the North”.
Putting things into a wider perspective, former Australian ambassador to the UN and nuclear disarmament negotiator Richard Butler added his weight to the subject the following day with this footnote on Broinowski’s article:
“This report has now been confirmed by a report published in the March 4th edition of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which cites a statement by the DPRK Foreign Minister, Ri Yong-Ho, in Hanoi, that “John Bolton disrupted the talks by demanding that North Korea disclose its chemical and biological arsenal as well as its nuclear arsenals”. This would seem to answer the question I posed in my article on whether or not a spanner had been thrown into the works and if so, by whom? Not unusually, there seems to have been no report of this highly salient fact by western mainstream media.”
What matters here however is not simply to expose the misinformed and fraudulent claims made about the failure of the Hanoi talks. Bolton and his allies – whoever they are – evidently sought to sabotage the talks and the possibility of agreement and détente, against the intention of Donald Trump. The last thing they want is to lose the pretext for maintaining and expanding missile systems in the region aimed at threatening or “countering” China. An informative report from the East Asia Forum think-tank also makes this suggestion:
For many in the US security community the ‘no deal’ comes as a relief. There were concerns that Trump would be eager to rush into a deal, no matter what the costs of the concessions, to claim the diplomatic achievement for his administration. This seemed an over-urgent goal due to the impending report by FBI special prosecutor Robert Mueller on the Trump campaign’s ties to Russia and possible obstruction of justice, as well as the heat on Trump from his former fixer Michael Cohen’s damning testimony last week to Congress.
So far from returning to the US with an extra feather in his golden cap, Donald Trump came home to face the music, and not just from the Russia-gate witch-hunt. Even though he had called off the talks with Kim Jong Un, he had already engaged in friendly exchanges and pleasantries that some found offensive, inviting media to repeat the tired nonsense about his dealings with President Putin – that “Trump takes the advice of “dictators” over that of his own intelligence community”. (perhaps not an unwise move under the circumstances!)
The story of his brief meeting with Kim then immediately focussed on how Trump had “taken Kim’s word” over the case of Otto Warmbier, the detained American student allegedly killed by mistreatment in a North Korean hospital. The grotesque demand of the DPRK for $500 million compensation for his death from a US court illustrates the problem that many in the US seem to have in relating to those with a different viewpoint and different attitude. If similar suits were brought against the US government by relatives of the millions of North Koreans who have died over the last sixty-five years as a direct or indirect result of US aggression and sanctions, the US would be bankrupted.
It’s hard not to conclude that the man who was considered “too extreme” to join the regime of George W Bush because of his preference for armed attacks and even nuclear strikes over diplomacy has now launched a soft coup against his own President. Immediately following the Vietnam venture, Bolton was making threats of military action against Venezuela’s President Maduro which had a strange resonance. The demand that Venezuela’s democratically elected President be replaced by an unknown and unelected puppet selected and launched like a missile into Caracas by the US and its European allies is now being copied by the self-selected “Interim President of the United States”, John Bolton.
And a world under this new de facto President with his choice of puppet might just make us look back on the Golden Age of Trump if we are lucky enough to survive it.
US Taxpayers On the Hook for Nearly $1 Billion in Saudi Arabia’s Recent Missile Defense Purchase
By Whitney Webb | MintPress News | March 8, 2019
WASHINGTON — On Monday, in an all-but-unreported news item, the Pentagon announced that it would be paying $946 million to Lockheed Martin toward the installation of a missile defense system that was purchased — not by the United States government — but by Saudi Arabia. In other words, the Pentagon is paying nearly $1 billion to subsidize a purchase made by a foreign power.
In its announcement, the Pentagon referred to the payment as an “undefinitized contract action” that would be used, in part, to prepare Saudi Arabia’s current missile defense system for the installation of the $15 billion Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system manufactured by Lockheed.
The Pentagon said the payment was intended to prevent major delays in the delivery and production of the THAAD system, suggesting it was likely a hedge against past Saudi interest in the THAAD’s main (and cheaper) competitor, the Russian-made S-400. However, the payment is also authorized for use by Lockheed to pay for materials, tools and engineering development.
The Saudi THAAD purchase was a major component of the “$110 billion” weapons deal much touted by the Trump administration in 2017. However, many of the key purchases within that massive deal were never finalized, an embarrassment for what the administration had advertised as a major foreign policy success that would create jobs in the United States, even though many Lockheed products are actually manufactured abroad.
A better deal for a better product down the block
One likely explanation for the Pentagon’s willingness to pay such a significant amount to subsidize the Saudi THAAD system is the fact that the Saudi government had intended to purchase the cheaper and more effective Russian-made S-400 instead of the THAAD. Indeed, as MintPress News reported last year, the Saudis let the deadline for the THAAD deal pass on September 30 of last year without signing, and instead expressed interest in the S-400. The Saudis also refused U.S. government requests to disavow its interest in the Russian-made system.
Just two days after the THAAD deadline passed, Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi disappeared. His disappearance and alleged murder caused international outrage, surprising many observers, as even the most outrage-prone U.S. politicians generally turn a blind eye to Saudi human-rights violations. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who became one of the most vocal critics of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) after Khashoggi’s disappearance, is also heavily funded by Lockheed Martin, which is the largest contributor to his 2020 re-election campaign.
The furor over Khashoggi’s death — which appears to have been, in part, influenced by Saudi lack of interest in the THAAD system — eventually pressured the Saudi government enough to sign letters of offer and acceptance for their purchase of 44 THAAD launchers, missiles and related equipment in November.
However, in order to entice the Saudis to “buy American,” more than political pressure appears to have been needed and it is likely that U.S. officials offered to “sweeten the deal.” Given this context, the Pentagon’s $946 million payout to prevent installation delays appears to be one of these concessions, as the U.S. government continues to scramble to keep its allies from buying the THAAD’s top competitor, the Russian S-400. Unfortunately for them, it’s the U.S. taxpayers who are footing the bill.
Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism
The Stench of Color Revolution in Serbia
By Tim KIRBY | Strategic Culture Foundation | 08.03.2019
At any given moment there are mass protests happening somewhere for some reason. Whether the protestors have a legitimate call to arms is a very delicate question. However for the Mainstream Media things are much more black and white and this narrative is a critical component of each and every Color Revolution.
Over the last few months a protest movement has sparked up in Serbia and we are going to take a look at this via the mainstream media coverage of it. The actual motivations behind it (although proving motivation beyond a reasonable doubt is impossible) do not matter so much as what the media declares them to be. The Mainstream Media creates a narrative about the movement in order to either motivate us to sympathize with those in the streets (thus legitimizing them) or to be repulsed and afraid of them (thus blocking any chance of legitimacy). Ignoring the obvious and hoping it goes away is a common third option.
You will see this dynamic in action if we take a look at the BBC’s breakdown of the protests…
“Thousands of demonstrators in Serbia have rallied for the fifth week against President Aleksandar Vucic.
Protesters say the president has seized control of the media and launched attacks on the opposition and journalists.
An attack on opposition politician Borko Stefanovic by unknown assailants in November triggered the marches.
Opposition umbrella group Alliance for Serbia (SZS) says they were supporters of Mr Vucic – a claim authorities deny.”
At a quick glance this may seem very neutral but the first words of the article make a very bold hint to the subconscious of the reader. First off, the BBC makes it clear that the protestors are just normal Serbian citizens, when in fact all protests are organized and the more successful ones are organized by professional activists. Thousands of normal people on their own don’t just drop their lives for two months to walk around with signs in the hope of making some abstract changes. Even if the masses agree with the protestors there is no way to prove this.
The next form of manipulation is that the BBC and no other media outlet offers any other motives for the attack on Stefanovic other than “protestors say Vucic’s guys did it”, which essentially tells the reader that Vucic is guilty. There is no alternative and if anyone who supports you does a crime then you are guilty even if you have millions of supporters from all walks of life and levels of sanity.
Next if we take a look at Euronews’s situation breakdown then we can see that there is more Color Revolution language….
“What are their (the protestors’) demands?
They demand more media freedom and more coverage of opposition groups by the public broadcaster as well as an end to attacks on journalists and opposition figures.”
This is something that sounds nice and reasonable at first, but is actually impossible to implement because it is not a concrete demand. No matter what a government does the opposition could always claim that it is not enough.
For example, if the government in Country X banned Product Y and the population was organized to march to change the law then the government could legalize Product Y and the protestors would get what they want and go home. As long as the government did not look weak during this reversal on position this would pose no threat to causing a Color Revolution. That is why concrete demands are horrible if you want a regime change.
So how can make “media freedom” into a concrete demand? How many “opposition” members are needed in Serbia’s media and in what capacity would be “freedom”? I am sure Serbia has a few Neo-Nazis, Satanists and NAMBLA members in the hills somewhere, do they need access to the media too, they are opposition groups after all, right?
Euronews continues their breakdown…
“Vucic, who has served as president of Serbia since May 2017, became known for his nationalist stance following the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1992.”
In EU-speak being called a nationalist basically means you are a hardcore Hitlerian Nazi. (Deutsche Welle called him “Ultranationalistic”, meaning he is definitely an Ultra Nazi) Furthermore this text is placed a few lines above a picture of Vucic standing next to Vladimir Putin. This drives home the portrayal of him as the bad guy aligned with the Evil Putin. This photo is of some relevance as the protests did spark up around the time of a visit by the Russian President, but then again if you do a Google search for pictures of Vucic you can see him shaking hands with Xi, Trump and Merkel who all hold very different ideological views. They could have shown him in this article with the Angel I, the Queen of EU, but they chose the KGB dark Tsar instead on purpose.
Deutsche Welle early in the article mentioned above lays out the protestors supposed motivations in a very clear Color Revolution tone.
“… what they called a climate of “political violence” created by Vucic and his Serbian Progressive Party”
One would think that journalists, when hearing an accusation of a “climate of violence” would try to present the evidence regarding said violence but DW just sort of lets it fly to the readers that there is some kind of conditions for brutality somewhere, that are somehow consciously caused by one man – The President of Serbia. Violence is very easy to measure, an abstract climate of violence is not and therefore it is good Color Revolution rhetoric – you can accuse the enemy of widespread violence even if there is no actual violence.
DW continues their “journalism” by writing…
“A group of opposition leaders last week drafted an “agreement with the citizens” listing their next steps, including not to take part in an election until the conditions for a free and fair vote are met.”
If the people on Vucic’s side who are also activists made an “agreement with the citizens” would that also bear some sort of legitimacy? DW makes no effort to question by what authority the protestors assume they represent the masses of the nation. Every Mainstream Media outlet writes that there are “thousands” of protestors, yet thousands of people in any country that is not a tiny island are a small percent of the population at best.
So what we can see is that across the board the European Mainstream Media is saying.
- Some violence happened somehow so Vucic is responsible 100% (Regime Change Warranted)
- There is a climate of violence and Vucic is responsible 100% (Regime Change Warranted)
- The protestors are large in number (“thousands” of them!) and represent the average Serbian disgusted with Vucic (Regime Change Warranted)
- Vucic is some kind of ultra-mega Nazi because he is not ashamed of being Serbian and talked to Putin (Regime Change Warranted)
- The protestors’ impossibly vague demands must be met even though doing so is impossible, “muh rights”. (Regime Change Warranted)
Government to Facebook Pipeline Reveals a Corrupt Mix of Social Media and the State
By Matt AGORIST | The Free Thought Project | February 2, 2019
As the Free Thought Project has previously reported, the phrase “Facebook is a private company” is not accurate as they have formed a partnership with an insidious neoconservative “think tank” known as the Atlantic Council which is directly funded and made up of groups tied to the pharmaceutical industry, the military industrial complex, and even government itself. The Atlantic Council dictates to Facebook who is allowed on the platform and who is purged.
Because the Atlantic Council is funded in part by the United States government—and they are making decisions for Facebook—this negates the claim that the company is private.
Since our six million followers and years of hard work were wiped off the platform during the October purge, TFTP has consistently reported on the Atlantic Council and their ties to the social media giant. This week, however, we’ve discovered something just as ominous—the government to Facebook pipeline and revolving door.
It is a telltale sign of a corrupt industry or company when they create a revolving door between themselves and the state. Just like Monsanto has former employees on the Supreme Court and Pharmaceutical industry insiders move back and fourth from the FDA to their companies, we found that Facebook is doing the same thing.
Below are just a few of corrupt connections we’ve discovered while digging through the list of current and former employees within Facebook.
Facebook’s Head of Cybersecurity Policy—aka, the man who doles out the ban hammer to anyone he wishes—is Nathaniel Gleicher. Before Gleicher was censoring people at Facebook, he prosecuted cybercrime at the U.S. Department of Justice, and served as Director for Cybersecurity Policy at the National Security Council (NSC) in the Obama White House.
While Facebook may have an interest in seeking out Gleicher’s expertise, this man is an outspoken advocate of tyranny.
After deleting the pages of hundreds of antiwar and pro-peace media and activist outlets in October, last month, Facebook made another giant move to silence. This time, they had no problem noting that they went after pages whose specific missions were “anti-corruption” or “protest” movements. And it was all headed up by Gleicher.
“Some of the Pages frequently posted about topics like anti-NATO sentiment, protest movements, and anti-corruption,” Gleicher wrote in a blog post. “We are constantly working to detect and stop this type of activity because we don’t want our services to be used to manipulate people.”
Seems totally legit, right?
The list goes on.
In 2017, as the Russian/Trump propaganda ramped up, Facebook hired Joel Benenson, a former top adviser to President Barack Obama and the chief strategist for Hillary Clinton’s failed 2016 presidential campaign, as a consultant.
While filling team Zuck with Obama and Clinton advisers, Facebook hired Aneesh Raman, a former Obama speechwriter who now heads up Facebook’s “economic impact programming.”
Highlighting the revolving door aspect of Facebook and the US government is Sarah Feinberg who left the Obama train in 2011 to join Facebook as the director of corporate and strategic communications. She then moved on after and went back to Obama in 2015 to act as the administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA).
David Recordon also highlights the revolving door between Facebook and the government. Recordon was the former Director of IT for Obama’s White House. He was also Engineering Director at Facebook prior to his role at the White House, and returned to the position after the 2016 election. He is currently Engineering Director for the Chan-Zuckerberg initiative.
Starting to see a pattern of political influence here? You should. But just in case you don’t, the list goes on.
Meredith Carden—who, you guessed, came from the Obama administration — joined the Facebook clan last year to be a part of Facebook’s “News Integrity Team.” Now, she’s battling fake news on the platform and as we’ve shown, there is a ridiculous amount of selective enforcement of these so-called “standards.”
In fact, there are dozens of former Obama staffers, advisers, and campaign associates who quite literally fill Facebook’s ranks. It is no wonder the platform has taken such a political shift over the past few years. David Ploufe, Josh W. Higgins, Lauryn Ogbechie, Danielle Cwirko-Godycki, Sarah Pollack, Ben Forer, Bonnie Calvin, and Juliane Sun, are just some of the many Facebook execs hailing out of the Obama era White House.
But fret not right wingers, Facebook likes their neocons too.
Jamie Fly, who was a top adviser to neocon Florida Senator Marco Rubio and who started his career in US political circles as an adviser to the George W. Bush administration, actually took credit for the massive purge of peaceful antiwar pages that took place last October.
“They can invent stories that get repeated and spread through different sites. So we are just starting to push back. Just this last week Facebook began starting to take down sites. So this is just the beginning,” Fly said in December.
Fly backs up his words with the fact that he works with Facebook’s arm of the Atlantic Council to ensure those dangerous antiwar folks don’t keep pushing their propaganda of peace and community.
And yes, this list goes on.
Joel David Kaplan is Facebook’s vice president of global public policy. Prior to his major role within Facebook, Kaplan took the place of neocon extraordinaire Karl Rove as the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for George W. Bush. Before that, from 2001 to 2003 he was Special Assistant to the President for Policy within the White House Chief of Staff’s office. Then he served as Deputy Director of the Office of Management And Budget (OMB).
Myriah Jordan was a special policy assistant in the Bush White House, who was hired on as a policy manager for Facebook’s congressional relations team—aka, a lobbyist. Jordan has moved back and forth between the private sector and the US government multiple times over his career as he’s made millions greasing the skids of the state for his corrupt employers.
So there you have it. Facebook, who claims to be a private entity, is quite literally made up of and advised by dozens of members of government. We’re ready for a change, are you?
Bernie Sanders blames climate change for Alabama tornado death toll
Climate Depot – March 7, 2019
“The science is clear, climate change is making extreme weather events, including tornadoes, worse,” the independent Vermont senator said in a Facebook post linking to an EcoWatch article on the tornado.
“We must prepare for the impacts of climate change that we know are coming. The full resources of the federal government must be provided to these families. Our thoughts are with the people of Alabama and their families.”
Climate Depot Reality Check:
2018 sees record low death toll & no violent (EF4 or EF5) tornadoes for first time since records began in 1950 – With five days left in the year, The Weather Channel reported that the United States will finish with the fewest tornado deaths on record, should no tornadoes touch down and create fatalities before January 1.
And should no EF4/5 tornadoes hit the U.S. in the next five days, it would mark the first time that none have hit in a calendar year since that record began in 1950, according to the Washington Post.
Would Britain accuse Russia of hacking without evidence? It’s ‘highly likely’
By Simon Rite | RT | March 7, 2019
Answer the following question: When Sky News asked unnamed UK government sources whether Russia hacked the Institute of Statecraft, did they reply it was: ‘somewhat likely,’ ‘highly likely,’ or ‘don’t know’?
If you said it’s ‘highly likely’ you got the answer right.
So, in an exclusive report Sky News reveals that Britain’s National Crime Agency (NCA) is investigating a cyber attack on “the little-known Institute for Statecraft”, and that sources, which are only named as being from “Whitehall,” say it’s ‘highly likely’ Russia’s military intelligence service was behind it.
Furthermore, “Chris Donnelly, a former senior Ministry of Defence civil servant who co-founded the Institute for Statecraft, said he has little doubt who hacked it, though he has no “forensic proof.”
Shady GRU, anonymous sources, ‘highly likely,’ no “forensic proof”, and slap an exclusive tag on it. It’s the classic formula for a Russia story.
The cyber-hacks have actually concentrated on the Integrity Initiative which is run by the Institute for Statecraft. The Integrity Initiative says it aims to combat “disinformation used by Russia and others.” It’s main tactic against what it perceives as propaganda is to use propaganda.
It’s also been caught tweeting anti-Jeremy Corbyn material, which isn’t good considering they’re partly-funded by the UK Foreign Office.
Only in a story about Russia and the GRU would it be acceptable to place your trust in anonymous sources and a former MoD employee who runs a transparently anti-Russia programme staffed by former spies.
The Integrity Initiative files that were hacked have been leaked over a number of months, by someone calling themselves Anonymous.
The Sky News article, which doesn’t want to undermine the insinuation that only Russia could be to blame, says there is no proof that this Anonymous group is linked to the worldwide group of activist hackers of the same name. Even if there’s no ‘forensic proof,’ surely it’s ‘highly likely’ they are?
Delaying publication of the settlement blacklist exposes the UN’s false narratives on human rights
By Ramona Wadi | MEMO | March 7, 2019
The UN is openly flaunting its priorities and, sadly, human rights are far from a major concern for the international organisation. Since its creation post-World War Two, and having established itself as the platform which determines what constitutes a human rights violation and which countries can be considered as perpetrators, several trends have emerged within the UN which reduces the seriousness of people being deprived of their legitimate rights.
This has been achieved by creating ample space for reports on human rights violations to be disseminated, while refusing to insist upon accountability and justice. Ironically, the increasing awareness regarding human rights violations is actually creating widespread impunity, as the UN promotes itself as a platform for reporting about violations while intentionally failing to take action.
Last month, for example, a UN report said that Israel “may have” committed war crimes against Palestinians participating in the Great March of Return demonstrations; it was publicised heavily, despite a predictable outcome. Israel will not be held accountable and those celebrating the UN’s recognition of Israel having possibly committed war crimes will not be vindicated by a thorough follow-up and prosecution. Another wave of silence will descend until the UN issues another report that reaches the same conclusion. We will never see an international court having the opportunity to test the evidence from both sides to judge whether “may have” is to become “has”, and appropriate action is to be taken.
On Tuesday, it was revealed that UN Human Rights Commissioner Michelle Bachelet has delayed the publication of a report exposing companies and institutions that do business with Israeli settlements due to “factual complexity”. According to Bachelet, “Further consideration is necessary to fully respond to the [human rights] council’s request.”
In response to Bachelet’s decision, PLO Committee Member Hanan Ashrawi noted, “The issue of corporate responsibility to respect human rights is neither a novelty nor an anomaly in the rules-based international system.”
Publishing the UN blacklist of companies had already been delayed by Bachelet’s predecessor in 2017. Israel has lobbied extensively for the report to remain unpublished, fearing the repercussions if firms listed in the report were to be targeted by boycotts.
The Times of Israel described the report as “highly controversial”, yet neither Israel nor its apologists deem colonialism and its nefarious activities to be controversial, which is the least that can be said about the shocking level of violence unleashed by the Israelis on Palestine and the Palestinians. The truth is that there is nothing at all “controversial” about publishing a report detailing how companies and colonialism thrive upon human rights violations, unless you have something to hide.
What is controversial, though, is Bachelet’s decision to delay publication. The former President of Chile is no stranger to controversy when it comes to her country’s human rights record, despite her own suffering at the hands of the Pinochet dictatorship. The application of the anti-terror laws to the indigenous Mapuche communities was most widespread during her two terms of office. As UN High Commissioner, she also failed to voice any substantive statement over the murder of Mapuche youth Camilo Catrillanca, killed on his own land by a special force known as the Comando Jungla.
Israel might find it has an ally at the UN in Bachelet, who is clearly no novice when it comes to the targeting of indigenous populations. Her expression of “regret” at Israel’s dismissal of the UN report documenting Israel’s use of violence at the Great March of Return protests is meaningless.
When it comes to human rights violations, rhetoric stands alone, especially when it comes to premeditated violence. There is no other institution like the UN that can create a spectacle out of violence and human rights rhetoric which fuels international attention, knowing full well that any reactions — any expressions of “regret” — will be temporary and have no effect.
The blacklist is another matter altogether. Bachelet is contributing to the impunity desired by Israel in order to retain its economic benefits from the occupation of Palestine. Settlements and human rights violations are an acceptable rhetorical subject, whereas settlements and the profits for the state therefrom as collaborators in violations are a red line for Israel and the UN. By delaying publication of this report, Bachelet is sending a clear message to the Palestinians: Israel and its business links are to be protected at all costs, even if that means sacrificing more of the indigenous Palestinian population.
Netanyahu Threatens to Deploy Israeli Navy to Enforce US Oil Sanctions on Iran
Sputnik – March 7, 2019
Earlier, despite threats to bring Tehran’s crude oil exports down “to zero,” Washington granted ‘temporary waivers’ on Iranian oil to major importers including China, India, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Greece, and Turkey, as well as Taiwan. Unless they are renewed, these waivers may expire in May.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has threatened to deploy the Israeli Navy to help tackle suspected Iranian efforts to smuggle out oil via maritime routes to skirt US sanctions.
“Iran is trying to circumvent the sanctions through covert oil smuggling over maritime routes, and to the extent that these attempts widen, the Navy will have a more important role in blocking these Iranian actions,” Netanyahu said, speaking to graduates of the Israeli Naval Academy in Haifa on Wednesday, according to the Jerusalem Post.
“I call on the entire international community to stop Iran’s attempts to circumvent the sanctions by sea, and of course, by [other] means,” Netanyahu added.
The prime minister did not clarify how the Israeli Navy, whose fleet consists mostly of coastal patrol ships, missile boats, corvettes and support ships, would tackle the suspected Iranian oil smuggling, or whether Israeli efforts would include preparedness for direct armed confrontation at sea. At present, the Israeli Navy operates primarily in the Mediterranean Sea, as well as the Gulf of Aqaba and the Red Sea.
Boarding merchant vessels in international waters without the flag state’s permission is illegal under the Convention on the High Seas, and may be interpreted as an act of aggression.
Tehran has repeatedly warned that it may resort to closing the Strait of Hormuz, a key strategic waterway through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil passes, if it is provoked into doing so and its oil exports interfered with. Oil exports are a vital lifeline for Iran’s economy, with the country exporting some $40.1 billion of crude oil in 2017, contributing to nearly 5 percent of total world supplies.
Is The UK Prepared To Add Iran to Its List Of Terrorists? Tightening The Noose Around The Neck of The Community That Supports Hezbollah
By Elijah Magnier | American Herald Tribune | March 5, 2019
The UK government has added the political and military branches of Lebanese Hezbollah to its terrorist list following a decision initiated by Home Secretary Sajid Javid and approved by Parliament. Hezbollah, or the “Party of God” is now one of the 74 foreign groups and 14 other groups related to Northern Ireland on the list. Any support to this organisation falls under the Terrorism Act of 2000. In the same act, under the rubric of fund-raising, offences, article 15, it clearly states that any person commits an offence if he invites others to provide money or other property to a proscribed group. Since the General Secretary of Hezbollah Sayed Hassan Nasrallah and the government of Iran both overtly acknowledge the financial, military, technical, intelligence and other social services support that Iran provides to the organisation, a clear question arises for the UK government: Will the Iranian government be included on its terrorism list, or is the UK government ready to violate its own law? What is the real purpose behind the UK decision?
The point is not to identify Hezbollah as a terrorist group. The goal is rather to prevent donations from reaching Hezbollah at a time when Iran is under heavy sanctions meant to limit its cash flow and, consequently, impede its financial support to groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Syrian government, and other groups in Iraq and Yemen. This is what the UK Home Secretary Sajid Javid meant by “secret intelligence” during his last intervention at the House of Commons. Time will tell if this secret intelligence has been correctly understood and will serve the UK’s desired objectives.
The Terrorism Act of 2000, under funding arrangements, article 17 (a) and (b), states as follows: “A person commits an offence if he enters into or becomes concerned in an arrangement as a result of which money or other property is made available or is to be made available to another… that will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism”.
Article 12, under the rubric “Support”, is explicit: “A person commits an offence if he invites support, provision of money for a proscribed organisation, and arranges a meeting to support or encourage support for a proscribed organisation, or participates in a private meeting…”
The text of the articles is unambiguous: anyone who supports or meets with Hezbollah individuals or commanders is subject to a maximum of 10 years of prison. These clauses cannot but apply to Iran, the first and utmost supporter of Hezbollah.
Iranian officials, beginning with Foreign Minister Jawad Zarif, can no longer visitSayed Nasrallah and then go to the UK or meet UK officials without risk of imprisonment, now that the UK officially classifies Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation.
Hezbollah’s yearly budget to operate in Syria and Lebanon and to support any other group with weapons or transfer of expertise is provided by the Iranian government, together with additional funds that Sayed Ali Khamenei provides from donations to the Imam Reza shrine. Thus, in accordance with the 2000 legislation, the UK can be expected to cut its relationship with Iran at once.
Politically speaking, Hezbollah meets in private and overtly with all political leaders of Lebanon. These meetings begin with the Christian President Michel Aoun, the Sunni Prime Minister Saad Hariri, the Shia Speaker Nabih Berri, and the Ministers of Foreign affairs Joubran Basil, Defence Elias bu Saab, Health Jamil Jabq and Finance Ali Hasan Khalil, and most political leaders of the country. This imposes – theoretically – on the UK government the obligation to reject any entry visa to all these politicians and to prevent any meetings with their diplomats after March the 3d, 2019.
What if the UK breaks its own laws and its officials meet with Hezbollah officials or those who hold private meetings with its leaders, in defiance of the UK Terrorism Act of 2000? If this happens, it will be difficult for any UK court to uphold a solid case against any Hezbollah supporter since UK officials regularly meet with their Iranian counterparts, who are responsible for funding Hezbollah.
The “Party of God” has no offices or representatives in any city around the world, even among the millions in the Lebanese community living abroad. Of course, there are thousands of Hezbollah supporters in the Lebanese Diaspora, notably Christians from the Tayyar al-Watani party led by President Aoun and his son-in-law the Foreign Minister Basil. And there are many more supporters among Shia in the diaspora who originate from the south of Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, Beirut and its suburbs. They have family members or cousins who operate within Hezbollah or at least support the organisation; some of these “Diaspora Shia” have adopted overtly Hezbollah’s cause on their own personal initiative.
Most of these Lebanese consider the cause of Hezbollah as their own because the group defended their Christian villages and cities from al-Qaeda and ISIS when these groups were based on the borders with Lebanon and in the Lebanese city of Arsal, with plans to expand into Lebanon. They consider Hezbollah the only force capable of protecting their homes in the south of Lebanon from any future Israeli aggression, in the face of daily Israeli violations of Lebanese sea, air and ground sovereignty.
There is no doubt that these enthusiastic Lebanese will be the favourite targets of Britain’s domestic security forces who are looking to register “a security achievement” of any kind. The problem was on the table in many cities around the world when Lebanese Shia sought to fulfil their Islamic tithing duty by donating 20% of their year-end profits. According to some Fatwas (Shia are free to follow the highest religious authority in accordance with their understanding of Islam), this 20% can be donated to the “Islamic Resistance”, i.e. Hezbollah. From now on anyone sending money for this Islamic purpose that ends up in Hezbollah coffers must be considered a financer of a terrorist organisation.
This same issue was a serious problem for Lebanese in the USA who were obliged to stop sending money back to Lebanon except for family members. Lebanese communities in many countries voluntarily observed the same restrictions in order to avoid severe penalties or jail in the west, causing a reduction in donations to Hezbollah. Thus, Hezbollah today relies exclusively on Iranian support.
The new measures in the UK do not aim to interfere with Hezbollah’s “non-existent” presence in the West and equally non-existent bank accounts abroad, nor do they aim to close Hezbollah offices that do not exist abroad. The new measures have the goal of tightening the noose around the neck of the community that supports Hezbollah.
The West began this process inside Lebanon by going after Lebanese banks and the accounts of wealthy Shia. Even exchange offices who change Hezbollah’s euros into dollars were included on the terrorist list. Wealthy Shia businessmen who sympathise with Hezbollah and who were involved in projects in Iraq saw their assets frozen by Iraq’s former Prime Minister Haidar Abadi in response to an official US request.
The western measures may succeed in making life more difficult for pro-Hezbollah Christians and Shia around the world. Nevertheless, the majority of Lebanese cannot renounce Hezbollah any more than they can renounce their own families, because Hezbollah is integral to their existence; nor is it confined to their homes and family members. Its ideology of Resistance informs their creed and world view, and this is the case whether or not they believe in Islam.
The MSM just realised the “Integrity Initiative” is a thing
… and it turns out it was all Russia’s fault
The actual listed address for The Integrity Initiative, and a handy visual metaphor for the absolute state of the place. Image source: UKColumn
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | March 7, 2019
For those of you who don’t know, the Integrity Initiative is (was?) a UK-government funded operation to “counter disinformation”. It was run under the auspices of the (fake) charity the Institute for Statecraft, paid for by the foreign office and intelligence agencies, and co-opted journalists to spread propaganda.
This was all revealed months ago, when internal documents were leaked online. (Moon of Alabama did great work on this, as did Kit Klarenberg).
Journalists and other influencers were collected into cells, what the Integrity Initiative’s (II) internal memos called “clusters”, usually by region. These clusters were tasked with “combating Russian disinformation”, or other polite translations of “disseminating propaganda”.
The II’s target list is short but predictable – it attacked Russia, Russian media and “Russian bots”. It attacked Scottish nationalists and the independence movement, and it attacked Jeremy Corbyn. Essentially, they turn the fire of their “clusters” on those perceived to be enemies of the status quo.
Those contributing to these clusters are then little more than attack dogs. They never call themselves that, of course, they have all sorts of mechanisms for defending themselves from the truth of their actions. That’s how the shallow have lived with the unconscionable since the beginning of time.
A good example of how this works is Scottish journalist David Leask – written about here by Craig Murrary.
We know from internal memos that Leask had a meeting with II personnel in late March of 2018. We know, from these notes, that Leask was “briefed” about how Scottish nationalism and independence played into Russia’s hands. Or the prevalence of “McBots” spreading anti-union messages on Twitter. He is “appraised of the dangers”, and then toddles off back to his computer, safe in the knowledge that – though he is doubtless writing about the government told him to write about – he’s making the world a safer, freer and better place. Somehow.
The details of the leaks are not important right now. They have been analysed and dissected in great detail already. The actual mechanics, how the different clusters worked, can be reasoned and guessed at, but never known for certain… short of more leaks.
What we DO know is that the foreign office spent millions of pounds funding an organisation which worked with journalists to spin pro-government narratives and smear the head of the opposition. This is a big deal. It should be enough to bring down the government, or least spark an investigation.
Neither happened. In fact, the content of these leaks was never reported in detail in the mainstream media. Indeed, it was barely covered at all – short of vague, snide opinion pieces about the UK “stooping to Russia’s level” and other childish nonsense. (The Guardian closed the comment section on that piece after 2 hours, when it was clear nobody was buying what they were trying to sell).
The detailed write-ups available are only on alternate media sites, or rebel academic groups. The only MP to raise the issue in Parliament was Chris Williamson… since hounded out of Labour under spurious charges of antisemitism. For the most part, the establishment simply ignored all mention if the Integrity Initiative.
Until now.
Now, months later, the media have awakened to the II’s presence. Sky reported today:
‘Highly likely’ GRU hacked UK institute countering Russian fake news
It’s a long, rambling article that contains only one important point: Chris Donnelly, head of the Institute for Statecraft, admits there is “no proof” Russia was behind the “hack”.
Everything past that point is moot. There’s no proof, there’s no evidence even (at least, none that we are shown). We have no reason to simply accept, on faith, the assertion of the NCA.
A simple analysis of motive would suggest that, of course the government are going to blame Russia. They have to shift focus from their now proven corruption. This is politics 101. Deflection and diversion. It’s old-fashioned and, unfortunately, it works. Especially when you have a small army of government-backed hacks to shovel your bullshit narrative down the public’s throat.
Exhibit A:
Note that nowhere in this story, or anywhere else, is the veracity of documents questioned. They are real. They are the truth. The mainstream media are attempting to undermine a known, proven truth by repeating – without analysis or question – a government-backed theory, for which they admit they have “no proof”.
Interestingly, both Cadwalladr and Deborah Haynes (the author of the Sky article) are named as members of the “UK Cluster” in the leaked documents.
So, essentially, we have journalists accused of working with a government propaganda office to smear Russia… who are defending themselves by spreading government propaganda which smears Russia. (It’s a very “My aunt, who I live with…” scenario). But when you only have the one card you’ve got to play it, and play it with conviction, I suppose.
All of this, of course, mirrors the leaked DNC e-mails from 2016. The e-mails proved corruption on behalf of Hillary Clinton, and yet were attacked in the media as being the result of “Russian hacking”. No evidence for Russian hacking has ever emerged, and WikiLeaks have said – dozens of times – that the e-mails were leaked by an insider.
In fact, the media’s defensive strategy is a move straight out of the DNC playbook:
“Yes I’m corrupt and malign, but you only know I’m corrupt and malign because the Russians hacked my e-mail!”
It’s not really anything like the brilliant defense they seem to think it is.
Kit Knightly is co-editor of OffGuardian. The Guardian banned him from commenting. Twice. He used to write for fun, but now he’s forced to out of a near-permanent sense of outrage.
Featured Video
The First Pyrrhic Victory of the Vietnam War
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
Frlom the Archives
The 52 Major Jewish American Organizations and Israel Celebrate Passover with the Slaughter of 25 Muslim, Christian and Secular Palestinians
By James Petras • Unz Review • April 8, 2018
Introduction
As of April 7, nearly three thousand unarmed Christian, Muslim and secular Palestinians have been wounded, over three dozen are in critical condition and at least twenty-five unarmed protestors, including children have been assassinated by hundreds of Israeli snipers and heavily armed troops shooting tank shells into crowds of civilians protesting their decades of incarceration by the racist Israeli state.
The Israeli government praised the ‘restraint and morality’ of the IDF, as did the fifty-two Major Jewish American Organizations (MJAO) who largely control the US Congress. These grotesque massacres began during the Christian Holy Week on Good Friday and Easter, coinciding with the Jewish Passover. The self-righteous officials of the MJAO and their relatives and friends broke matzos at joyful Seders as the blood of Palestinians soaked into ground at the fence containing the largest open-air prison camp in history, Gaza.
While tribal loyalties bonded the Israeli and Jewish American leaders, the politicians of the Western oligarchic electoral regimes refrained from criticizing the shocking display of brute force and even defended Israel’s cold blood mass killings of Palestinian civilians in their Gaza prison.
This paper will discuss and analyze the reasons for Israel’s willing Western accomplices and the centrality of its fifth column in the United States. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- No time for losers: Why the war meant to save Israel may destroy it
- Top US Counterterrorism Official Resigns in Protest of Operation Against Iran
- Just Get Out! Now!
- Unpacking glaring contradictions in US-Zionist justifications for war against Iran
- Iranian model of warfare bleeds US dry while Persian Gulf states watch and learn: Analyst
- IRGC orders ‘defeated’ US to evacuate industrial facilities in region
- Hegseth’s call for ‘no mercy’ to Iranians deemed war crime
- Iran War Exposes Limits of US Military Power – Journalist
- Even The Neo-Cons Admit The Iran War Is Failing
- Inside the Caucasus Drone Corridor Fueling Tensions With Iran
- If Americans Knew
- Top US counterterror advisor resigns in protest of “war manufactured by Israel” – Not a ceasefire Day 158
- ‘I Liked the House’: When Israeli Soldiers Turn Palestinian Homes into Barracks
- ‘They Were All I Had’: Lebanese Father Buries Parents, 4 Daughters Killed by Israeli Bombing
- Israel and its supporters are causing attacks on Jewish institutions. Case in point: Michigan synagogue tragedy.
- These are the casualties and cost of the war in Iran 2 weeks into the conflict
- Chicago Teachers Union accuses AIPAC of swaying elections with ‘dark money’
- Predictions of another 9/11, amid Israel-US killing spree – Not a ceasefire Day 157
- As US-Israel war on Iran rages, Gaza faces massive dust storm – Not a ceasefire Day 156
- No let-up in attacks on Gaza as Israel takes on Iran, Lebanon – Not a ceasefire Day 155
- ‘Of Course’: IDF Drops Case Against Soldiers Accused of Raping Palestinian Prisoner
- No Tricks Zone
- Storing Green Energy To Last Germany 10 Days Would Require A 60-Million Tonne Battery
- New Studies: UK Sea Levels Were 4 Meters Higher Than Today During The Mid-Holocene
- Destructive Green New Deal: German Energy And Metal Group Warns Of Drastic Crisis
- New Study Documents A 20-Year Pause In Arctic Sea Ice Decline – Driven By Internal Variability
- Wake-up Call: Survey Shows Majority Of Germans Now Favor Postponing Climate Targets!
- Televised! Leading German Political Candidate Tells Schoolchildren CO2 Makes Sun Hotter!
- New Study: A Century Warming Of 1.1°C Is ‘Commonplace’ And ‘Not Unusual’ During This Interglacial
- New Study: ‘Internal Noise’ And Volcanic Forcing Can Trigger 10-15°C Warming Within Decades
- Glaciers Worldwide Are Suddendly Surging, Experts Blame Warming!
- Surprising Discovery: Sahara Is Greening…Billions Of Trees Where Once Thought To Be Barren
Aletho News 