The Ridiculous Psychology of Conspiracy Theory
BY IAIN DAVIS | UK Column | MARCH 21, 2024
If you watched the BBC’s REEL segment, The Psychology Behind Conspiracy Theories, it probably became clear to you that the BBC was not dealing with science but had instead wandered off into the realm of fantasy. Unfortunately, experimental psychology investigating alleged “conspiracy theory” has been disconnected from objectivity for many years.
While psychology itself has a solid empirical foundation, experimental psychology often falls short of basic scientific standards. In 2015, the Open Science Foundation found that, of 100 published experimental psychology papers, results could only be replicated in 39, and just 36 produced findings from which any meaning could be drawn.
Such a high degree of subjectivity frequently leads to woolly conclusions, promoted as scientific fact in the BBC’s REEL segment. Shortly after the introduction, we are given the expert psychologist opinion that so-called “conspiracy theorists” are likely both to be extreme narcissists and to hold “beliefs” driven by a sense of powerlessness.
Narcissists can be broadly characterised as people with a perceived, and potentially misplaced, sense of higher social status. They often have expectations that they should be treated more favourably as a result.
While narcissists possess delicate egos, they certainly don’t suffer from a sense of powerlessness. Quite the opposite: narcissists frequently have a grandiose sense of self-importance, and the expectations to go with it.
This prima facie mutual exclusion in the double definition of “conspiracy theorists” near the beginning of the BBC’s short report on the psychology of those it chose to call conspiracy theorists gave us an early clue as to the epistemological failure at the heart of nearly all academic research on the subject. In point of fact, when we look more closely at the research claiming to reveal the “psychological traits” of the alleged conspiracy theorists, we frequently encounter the worst kind of pseudo-scientific drivel.
A Loaded Question
The BBC began its “investigation” by asking:
Are some people more vulnerable to conspiracy theories, or are we all at risk?
We were immediately told that “conspiracy theories” present some sort of psychological threat to our mental health. Apparently, they harm or damage us in some way, hence the BBC’s declaration that we might be “vulnerable” to their discourse.
Which prompts the question: what is it about supposed conspiratorial thinking that causes us harm?
The BBC didn’t say, but it did air the views of a number of experts who claimed to know.
Jonas Kaplan is the assistant research professor of psychology at, and co-director of, the University of Southern California’s Dornsife Neuroimaging Center. He studies the link between neurological activity and thoughts and emotion.
As an example of his work, in 2016 he co-authored a paper which monitored neural activity in a region of the brain called the default mode network (DMN). He and his fellow researchers presented a cohort of forty people, each of whom had expressed strongly “liberal” political opinions, with so-called “counter-evidence” that was intended to contradict their beliefs.
The team monitored the effect of this supposed cognitive challenge upon the subjects’ neural response. Specific neural activity was observed, indicating that the DMN region of the brain—associated with identity—was stimulated when personal beliefs were allegedly challenged. This was interesting but, from this point forward, the research started to go wildly astray.
From their observations, Kaplan and his colleagues concluded that resistance to changing beliefs, in the face of this suggested “contradictory evidence”, was stronger for political beliefs than it was for non-political convictions. They consequently inferred that political opinions were more strongly associated with our sense of self than other kinds of beliefs we hold.
Unfortunately, the researchers ignored the gaping hole in their own methodology. They mentioned it, but didn’t seem to fully grasp the full implications of what they had done.
Rather than actually “challenge” their subjects’ beliefs with genuine contradictory evidence, they decided to make most of it up. They said:
In order to be as compelling as possible, the challenges often contained exaggerations or distortions of the truth.
For example, they told the subjects that Russia had a larger nuclear arsenal than the US. This wasn’t a “distortion” of the truth; it was a false statement.
More importantly, the neuroscientists failed to ascertain whether the subjects knew it was a lie. In the case that the subject knew the information was false—and we don’t know how many did—their views had not actually been “challenged.” This massive oversight utterly undermined the paper’s primary conclusions.
The researchers stated:
Our political participants may have been more likely to identify these distortions for the political issues, especially if they were more familiar with these issues. [. . . ] We did find that participants who rated the challenges as more credible were more likely to change their minds, and it is well known that source credibility influences persuasion.
Following their extensive experimental research, Kaplan et al. “discovered” that people were more likely to believe information if it was credible. Conversely, they were less likely to believe information if it was evidently wrong—because the researchers had made it up.
Beyond stating the obvious, Kaplan et al. then delivered subjective conclusions that were not substantiated by their own experimental data:
Our data [. . .] support the role of emotion in belief persistence. [. . .] The brain’s systems for emotion, which are purposed toward maintaining homeostatic integrity of the organism, appear also to be engaged when protecting the aspects of our mental lives with which we strongly identify, including our closely held beliefs.
The problem is that the researchers didn’t know what those emotions were. People might simply have been angry because they were lied to.
Kaplan and his colleagues did not establish that the perceived resistance to changing a belief was the result of any defensive psychological mechanism, as claimed. There was nothing in their research that distinguished between that possibility and the equally plausible explanation that the subjects rejected the “challenging information” because they knew it was wrong.
The researchers’ ostensible finding—that the subjects’ resistance to change in the face of counter-evidence was linked to identity, and therefore demonstrated an emotional attachment that could potentially overcome rational thought—was an assumption unsupported by their own experimental data. Kaplan et al. noted where neurological activity occurred, but they did not demonstrate what the associated cognitive processes were.
Building Narratives Based Upon Flawed Assumptions
The press release that accompanied publication of the Kaplan et al. paper made no such clarification. It claimed, without cause, that Kaplan’s research had effectively proven an alleged sociological and psychological truth:
A USC-led study confirms what seems increasingly true in American politics: People are hardheaded about their political beliefs, even when provided with contradictory evidence. [. . .] The findings from the functional MRI study seem especially relevant to how people responded to political news stories, fake or credible.
The above statement represented a huge leap of logic that the paper itself didn’t justify. There was little evidence that the study subjects had been “provided with contradictory evidence” (emphasis added).
Rather, they were given so-called “distortions” and highly questionable opinions. Their reasons for rejecting these had not even been ascertained.
In the same press release, Kaplan declared:
Political beliefs are like religious beliefs in the respect that both are part of who you are and important for the social circle to which you belong. [. . .] To consider an alternative view, you would have to consider an alternative version of yourself.
This is similar to the statement he later made in the BBC REEL piece on the psychology of conspiracy theory:
One of the things we see with conspiracy theories is that they are very difficult to challenge. [. . .] One of the advantages of having a belief system that’s resistant to evidence is that the belief system is going to be very stable across time. If you have to constantly update your beliefs with new evidence, there’s a lot of uncertainty. [. . .] Conspiracy theories are a way of making sense of an uncertain world.
Where did Kaplan get his opinion from? It wasn’t evident from his work. Nor did it bring us any closer to understanding the allegedly harmful nature of the suggested conspiratorial thinking.
What Is Conspiratorial Thinking?
While a definition of “conspiracy theory” isn’t mentioned directly in the BBC REEL segment, we do at least obtain a cited reference to one in the paper of another contributor, Anni Sternisko. Sternisko is a PhD candidate at New York University who researches conspiracy groups. In her co-authored paper, she cites Understanding Conspiracy Theories (Douglas et al., 2019), which does offer some definitions:
Conspiracy theories are attempts to explain the ultimate causes of significant social and political events and circumstances with claims of secret plots by two or more powerful actors.
This ludicrous premise supposedly informs the universally-accepted working definition of “conspiracy theory”. It pervades nearly all academic research on the subject, including the alleged psychological studies of those labelled as “conspiracy theorists”; and, as we are seeing with the BBC, it is being accepted unquestioningly in the mainstream media, too.
Back in the real world, no-one tries to explain “significant social and political events” with “claims of secret plots”. It is, on its face, a ridiculous notion. It might happen with regularity in BBC sitcoms, but does it happen in your social circle?
How can anyone, other than the conspirators themselves, know what a “secret plot” entails? The clue is in the wording; it’s a secret.
Generally, the people who are labelled “conspiracy theorists” by academics, politicians, the mainstream media and other interested parties are eager to highlight the evidence that exposes real plots that actually happened or are currently underway. Examples which made it to full-scale parliamentary inquiries in various Western countries include Operation Gladio, Watergate, the Iran Contra affair and so on. These aren’t “secrets”. If they were, no-one would know about them.
The so-called conspiracy theorists of the real world also point to evidence which appears to expose real plots that are yet to be officially acknowledged. For example, the study by the Department of Civil Engineering and the University of Alaska Fairbanks seems to show that the official account of 9/11 cannot possibly be true.
Taking this example, the only way to determine whether the stories we have been told about 9/11 are true or not is to examine the evidence. Again, this evidence is not and indeed cannot be a “secret”. It can be obfuscated, hidden or denied—but it cannot be known of at all if it remains ”secret”.
There are many reasons why we might hypothesise that 9/11 was, in fact, some form of false-flag attack. None of the evidence suggesting this possibility is “secret”, either. It is all in the public domain.
The logical exploration of evidence is the best way yet devised to find the truth, and has been acknowledged as such since at least Socrates’ day. Inductive, deductive and abductive reasoning all rely upon this basic approach. The key factor here is the evidence, without which the facts cannot be known.
While we can, and should, question all theories, the only way to discover the truth is first to identify and then rigorously to examine the evidence, ideally ascertaining some facts along the way.
We are at liberty to argue incessantly about various explanations of events, but there is one absolute certainty: we will never know what the truth is if we don’t explore the evidence, that very activity which is now being presented to us as suspect.
Descent Into Bathos
The Douglas et al. paper continues:
Conspiracies such as the Watergate scandal do happen, but because of the difficulties inherent in executing plans and keeping people quiet, they tend to fail. [. . .] When conspiracies fail—or are otherwise exposed—the appropriate experts deem them as having actually occurred.
As incredible as this may be, as far as these academics and researchers are concerned, unless the conspiracy is officially acknowledged by the “appropriate experts”, it remains a “secret” and therefore cannot be known. We are being sold the line that conspiracies only come into existence once they have been officially admitted.
This is, then, the completely illogical basis for academia’s alleged research of conspiracy theory. Conspiracies are only identifiable when they fail or are otherwise “officially” exposed. For these various “experts”, the consideration—by their own acknowledgement—that conspiracies are often real, and not “secrets”, renders their offered definition of “conspiracy theory” self-contradictory rubbish.
If you come to the matter with the worldview that “conspiracy theorising” is an attempt to explain events in terms of “secret plots”, then it is reasonable to deduce that said “conspiracy theory” is rather silly. If, however, you concede that these allegedly “secret plots” are not secrets at all and can be discovered by examining the evidence that exposes them, then your original premise, upon which your definition of “conspiracy theory” is based, is complete junk.
It is difficult to express the monumental scale of the idiocy entailed in the experimental psychologists’ definition of “conspiracy theory.” It is exactly the same as asserting that any evidence offered to indicate that a crime has been committed is completely irrelevant unless the police have already caught the perpetrators and their guilt proven in court.
Sure, your front door has been kicked in, your property ransacked and your possessions stolen, but—according to the psychologists of conspiracy theory—this is not evidence of a crime. The facts have yet to be established by the “appropriate experts”, and consequently the alleged crime remains a “secret” and is unknowable.
This absurd contention, based upon the logical fallacy of appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam), is the foundation for all of the pseudo-scientific gibberish about conspiracy theory and theorists that follows. Douglas et al. also reveal some of the other terms often used in this so-called psychological research.
“Conspiracy belief”, “conspiracy thinking”, “conspiracy mindset”, “conspiracy predispositions”, “conspiracist ideation”, “conspiracy ideology”, “conspiracy mentality” and “conspiracy worldview”—most of these apparently serving no distinct purpose other than an attempt at elegant variation—are all terms based upon the psychologists’ own delusional beliefs. For some reason, all those researching the psychology of those they have labelled conspiracy theorist imagine, without reason, that the so-named “conspiracists” don’t have any evidence to back up their arguments.
In a moment of self-conscious admission, the Douglas et al. paper adds:
It is important for scholars to define what they mean by “conspiracy theorist” and “conspiracy theory” because—by signalling irrationality—these terms can neutralize valid concerns and delegitimize people. These terms can thus be weaponized. [. . .] Politicians sometimes use these terms to deflect criticism because it turns the conversation back onto the accuser rather than the accused.
As noted above, the scholars’ definition of “conspiracy theory” is etymologically redundant. The associated—and empty—pejorative of “conspiracy theorist” has consequently seeped into the lexicon, and it is based upon nothing but assumption and imagination.
The term “conspiracy theorist” has indeed been weaponised. It was designed to ensure that people don’t look at the evidence, wherever it is applied.
Politicians, the mainstream media, the scientific and medical authorities, and many other representatives of the establishment, right down to neighbourhood level, frequently use it to “deflect criticism” (in Douglas’ apt phrase) and to level unwarranted accusations at their critics. As outlined in Document 1035 – 960, this is precisely how the CIA envisaged that the “conspiracy theorist” label would function.
Regrettably, for most people, it is enough for someone just to be called a “conspiracy theorist” for anything subsequently proceeding from their mouth to be ignored. It doesn’t matter how much evidence they provide to support their views. The labelling system has done its job.
We might expect scientists, academics and psychologists to maintain higher standards. Unfortunately, BBC REEL’s The Psychology Behind Conspiracy Theories demonstrates that this is often not the case.
Who Is It That Is “At Risk” From Conspiracy Theories?
This reliance upon an illogical presupposition leads to profound confusion. During The Psychology Behind Conspiracy Theories, Anni Sternisko commented:
Conspiracy theories are not necessarily irrational or wrong. And I think what we are talking about in society at the moment—what is frightening us—are better explained, or better labelled, as conspiracy narratives; that is, ideas that are irrational to believe, or at least unlikely to be true—that are not necessarily theories, such that they are not falsifiable.
Sternisko appears to have been talking to her BBC interviewer about two completely different things: evidence-based arguments on one hand and irrational beliefs on the other.
Sternisko’s problem is that both the rational and the irrational are indiscriminately referred to as “conspiracy theories” in today’s academe and media. Thus, in searching for a unifying psychology to account for two diametrically opposed thought processes, the doctoral researcher cannot avail herself of suitable terminology that has gained acceptance in her professional environment and is forced by her own intellectual honesty to start coining spontaneous distinctions between alleged conspiracy “theories” and “narratives”.
This may be welcome insight, but it has become necessary only because the psychologists in her field are floundering around with a working definition of “conspiracy theory” that is ridiculous. Again, we can look to the paper by Douglas et al. to appreciate just how incoherent it is:
While a conspiracy refers to a true causal chain of events, a conspiracy theory refers to an allegation of conspiracy that may or may not be true. [. . .] To measure belief in conspiracy theories, scholars and polling houses often ask respondents—through surveys—if they believe in particular conspiracy theories such as 9/11, the assassination of JFK, or the death of Princess Diana.
This reconfirms that the only benchmark that the academics concerned have for “measuring” what they call “conspiracy theory” is the extent to which the subject agrees or disagrees with the official account of any given event. As long as their subjects unquestionably accept the official “narrative”, they aren’t considered to be “conspiracy theorists.” If they do question it, they are.
Consequently, all of the related experimental psychology is completely meaningless, because the researchers never investigate whether what they call conspiracy theory “may or may not be true”. There is no basis for their claim that “conspiracist ideation” is irrational, or even that it exists.
Without establishing the credibility of the propounded theory, the psychologists, sociologists and other researchers and scientists involved have based their entire field of research upon their own opinions. This cannot be considered science.
In this light, Anni Sternisko’s statement at last reveals something about what the BBC called the “risk” of conspiracy theory. It seems that these alternative explanations of events are not dangerous to the conspiracy theorists themselves, but rather to people like Sternisko, who find them “frightening”.
Questioning power is a fundamental democratic ideal, yet this PhD candidate would appear to be one of millions in Western societies who have come to feel that doing so is scary. Fear, and the resultant stress and anxiety it produces, can be very damaging to our mental health. So the BBC is right, in a sense, to highlight potential risks in this domain.
It is just that the BBC, and the groundless psychological theories it promotes, are wrong about who is at risk. It isn’t the purported “conspiracy theorists”, but rather the people who unquestioningly accept official accounts who are “vulnerable”.
What the BBC presented with its REEL segment was not an exploration of the psychology behind conspiracy theory. It was instead an exposé of the deep-rooted terror of those who apparently dare not look at the evidence cited by the people they label “conspiracy theorists”.
If their government is lying to them, then, for some reason, it seems they do not want to know. The mere thought of it petrifies them.
The researchers—who insist that it is the “conspiracy theorists” who are deluded—have constructed a mythology masquerading as scientific knowledge. Their resultant research, founded upon this myth, isn’t remotely scientific. Inevitably, the psychologists who expounded upon their own apparent delusions for the BBC soon descended into farce.
It’s Science, Don’t Laugh
Professor Sarah Gorman authoritatively informed the BBC audience that “conspiracy theorists” are so irrational they can believe two contradictory statements at the same time. We have already discussed why so much of this psychological research is flawed, but Gorman was most likely referring to a paper that isn’t just based upon assumptions; it is appallingly bad science for numerous other reasons besides.
Gorman told the BBC audience:
People are very often able to hold in their heads two conspiracy theories that are directly in conflict. So, for example, people will simultaneously believe that Princess Diana’s death was staged, and that she’s still alive and also that she was murdered. And, on the face of it this doesn’t make much sense, but the underlying principle here is that they believe that something is just not right about the official story, and it almost doesn’t matter exactly what the alternative is; just that there has to be an alternative that’s being suppressed.
Professor Gorman was almost certainly referring here to one of the formative papers in the field of experimental conspiracy theory research, Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories (Wood, Douglas & Sutton, 2012).
Presumably, she has read it, so why she would make this statement is difficult to say. The paper is a joke.
Wood et al. conducted experiments in an effort to identify what they had already judged to be the psychological weakness of “conspiracy theorists”. They set the subjects a series of questions and rated their responses using a Likert-type scale (1 – strongly disagree, 4 – neutral response, 7 – strongly agree).
The psychologists conducting this research presented deliberately contradictory statements. For example, one arm of the study asked the subjects to indicate their level of agreement with the idea that Princess Diana was murdered and also with the suggestion that she faked her own death. Similarly, another arm asked the subjects the extent of their agreement with the notion that Osama bin Laden was killed by US Navy SEALs but also that he was still alive in captivity.
They collected the responses, analysed the results and, from this, deduced:
While it has been known for some time that belief in one conspiracy theory appears to be associated with belief in others, only now do we know that this can even apply to conspiracy theories that are mutually contradictory. This finding supports our contention that the monological nature of conspiracism is driven not by conspiracy theories directly supporting one another but by the coherence of each theory with higher-order beliefs that support the idea of conspiracy in general.
It seems that Professor Gorman, at least, is convinced by this pabulum and was willing to present it to the BBC as scientific fact. Alas—rather as with Kaplan’s paper—these scientists’ conclusions, seemingly referenced by Gorman, were not supported by their own experimental results.
Had the participants been asked to consider exclusivity, and subsequently indicated that they agreed with two or more contradictory theories, then the Wood et al. conclusion would have been substantiated. But they weren’t, so it wasn’t.
All that the participants were asked to do was to indicate their relative level of agreement. This Hobson’s choice of a study design means it is entirely possible, and logical, for a research participant of sound mind to agree strongly with one statement while agreeing somewhat with another, even if the two are “mutually contradictory”.
To illustrate this: the official account of Osama bin Laden’s death claims that he was assassinated by the US military. There is no video, forensic or photographic evidence, no witness testimony—all the members of the SEAL Team Six deployed to Pakistan for that operation have since managed to die—nor indeed anything, beyond the proclamation of politicians, to lend this tale any credibility at all. There isn’t even any evidence of a body, as bin Laden was allegedly buried at sea.
This is what happened… honest!
Consequently, if you doubt the official account (and what sane person wouldn’t), a whole range of possibilities exists. It all depends upon your evaluation of the available evidence—which by definition cannot come from the academically-vaunted official sources, because they haven’t presented any.
In such circumstances, it is perfectly legitimate to agree strongly that bin Laden died in 2011 and simultaneously to agree somewhat with the proposition that he was extraordinarily renditioned to a black-ops site somewhere. Nothing can be ruled out. There is insufficient evidence to draw any firm conclusion.
Wood et al. did not ask the study participants to exclude contradictory accounts; only to rate such accounts on a scale of plausibility. The paper’s conclusion, that the results of their experimental psychology proved “the monological nature of conspiracism” was driven by some assumed “higher-order” belief system, was pseudo-scientific claptrap.
The BBC duly conveyed Professor Gorman’s “expert” opinion that all of this somehow made sense. This is standard fare at White City. Anyone who questions the state or its narratives is a “conspiracy theorist”, as far as the BBC is concerned.
So, before we suffer any more of this nonsense, let’s politely ask these experimental psychologists to examine the evidence behind so-called conspiracy theories before they rush into making assumptions about the supposed psychology behind them. Hopefully, they won’t find the experience too frightening.
Full-Spectrum Psyop: US Whips Up Fear of Russian Bugaboo to ‘Subjugate Europe’
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 23.03.2024
From the French president’s threats to send troops to Ukraine to a series of media reports on alleged Russian plans to invade NATO, anti-Russian hysteria has reached a fever pitch in European capitals. Meanwhile, one world power has been able to sit back and quietly collect the dividends, says veteran foreign affairs observer Gilbert Doctorow.
European politicians are doing their best to continue ratcheting up tensions with Moscow, with French President Emmanuel Macron reiterating that he may send thousands of troops to Ukraine, Baltic politicians allying with Paris on the issue, and Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski saying it’s an “open secret” that NATO soldiers are already in the country.
British and German media have done their part to add fuel the hysteria, citing a recent briefing to Bundestag lawmakers on purported plans by Russia to kick off a “full-scale ‘land, sea and air’ war” with NATO.
“We hear threats from the Kremlin almost every day… so we have to take into account that Vladimir Putin might even attack a NATO country one day,” German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius warned in an interview earlier this year.
This week, Polish President Andrzej Duda claimed it was a matter “of common sense” that “Putin, by putting his economy on a war footing, will have such military might that he will be able to attack NATO.” Meanwhile, his top general, Polish Armed Forces Chief of Staff Wieslaw Kukula, has alleged that Russia is actively “preparing for a conflict,” and urging Europe to do the same.
Europe’s defenses are in an unenviable state. Facing a major economic downturn and a $61 billion spending shortfall after giving roughly the same amount away to Kiev for NATO’s proxy war against Russia, European military leaders have warned that they could be left “throwing stones” within hours of a major conflict breaking out as arms and ammo stocks round dry.
But the question no Western officials or media have been able to answer is why Russia – which has over the past three decades expressed a preference for economic cooperation with Europe, rather than fighting its western neighbors, would be interested in invading NATO and almost certainly triggering World War III.
“The whole of NATO cannot fail to understand that Russia has no reason, no interest – neither geopolitical, nor economic, nor political, nor military – to fight with NATO countries,” President Putin said in an interview in December, emphasizing that Moscow and the bloc “have no territorial claims against each other” and could live peacefully.
Puppet Hands at Play
The problem may just be that Russia is taking the hysterical outbursts by NATO officials and Western media at face value, instead of searching for the ‘man behind the curtain’ seeking desperately to keep tensions in place.
“For the United States, the war in Ukraine has failed as a means of weakening Russia so that they can proceed with preparations to fight China. But it has succeeded spectacularly as a means of subjugating Europe. Washington now firmly has its knees on the neck of Europe,” veteran international relations and Russian affairs expert Dr. Gilbert Doctorow told Sputnik.
Economically and politically, the US has been able to extract major concessions from the Europeans over the past two years, plucking hundreds of manufacturers from the continent thanks to an energy crisis sparked by the bloc’s “suicidal” decision to cut off Russian energy supplies, forcing the EU to purchase American LNG at four times the cost, and even trying to saddle Brussels with economic and military aid to Ukraine as Congress remains deadlocked over a $61 billion aid package.
“Here in Europe, the war is now being used to whip up popular enthusiasm for war mobilization of the domestic economies and subjugation of the populace to authoritarian and unlimited powers of the ruling elite,” Doctorow said.
“What remains of free speech and other freedoms can be snuffed out in war hysteria. Moreover, the war fever is being used by [European Commission President Ursula] von der Leyen and the EU Commission in a bid to draw more power into Brussels at the expense of the national governments,” Doctorow warned.
“Some countries are resisting, for example Prime Minister [Mark] Rutte of the Netherlands and even the mealy-mouthed German Chancellor [Olaf Scholz, ed.] are publicly opposed to the proposal of a European debt issuance to finance subsidies to the military production companies, all in spite of van der Leyen. Meanwhile, Macron is on the other side, pushing for greater European centralization for which is the proposed common investment in defense is a nice instrument,” the observer added.
Poking the Bear
Russia’s military buildup “has been reactive to new challenges from the West,” Doctorow stressed, pointing out, for example, that “until the decision of Finland and Sweden to join NATO, Russia had almost no troops on its northwest border. Now, in response to new threats from the northern neighbors, that is being rectified by a big military build-up on the Russian side.”
Something similar can be said of defense budgets, with the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute recently estimating that Russia’s defense budget amounted to $65.9 billion in 2021 – a fraction of NATO spending of $1.16 trillion ($753.5 billion of that by the US alone) the same year. Even in 2024, with the proxy war with NATO in Ukraine raging and intensifying, Russia plans to spend the equivalent of $140 billion, still just a fraction of the Western bloc, which has again accounted for more than half of all military spending worldwide this year.
Ultimately, Dr. Doctorow emphasized, Western governments are following an old playbook.
“An aggressive foreign policy stand is almost always a convenient way of distracting attention away from domestic failures. And thanks to the boomerang of Western sanctions, European economies are doing very poorly as we go into the June elections” to the European Parliament, the observer summed up.
This Is Not ISIS – Rossiya Segodnya Editor-in-Chief on Moscow Concert Hall Attack
Sputnik – 23.03.2024
Ukraine and the West have resorted to false flag operations to persuade everyone that ISIS was behind the terror attack in the Crocus City Hall concert venue near Moscow, said Margarita Simonyan, the editor-in-chief of Sputnik’s parent media group Rossiya Segodnya.
The head of the media group stressed that the names and faces of the perpetrators are already known to authorities and that the terrorists gave everything away during interrogation.
“It immediately became obvious why US media were claiming in unison that it was ISIS,” she said.
Simonyan explained that the perpetrators were chosen to carry out the attack in a manner that would allow the West to persuade the international community that ISIS was behind the attack.
“Basic sleight of hand. The level of a railway thimble-rigger,” she added.” It has nothing to do with ISIS. It’s Ukrainians.”
She added that the enthusiasm displayed by Western media when they tried to persuade everyone that ISIS was responsible even before arrests were made gave them away completely.
“This is not ISIS. This is a well-coordinated team of several other, also widely known, abbreviations,” Simonyan concluded.
The shooting occurred on Friday evening in the Crocus City Hall concert venue just outside Moscow and was followed by a massive fire, claiming at least 143 lives.
In the hours following the attack, Western media insisted that radical jihadist organization ISIS was behind it, while Ukrainian officials also said that they had nothing to do with the tragedy.
However, suspects were detained in Russia’s Bryansk region near Ukrainian border. According to the data provided by law enforcing agencies, they had a support base on the other side of the border.
Moreover, while Kiev rushed to deny its involvement into the shooting, Ukrainian secret services have a long track record of terror attacks on Russian territory, from shelling in the Belgorod region to assassinations of political scientist Daria Dugina and journalist Vladlen Tatarsky.
Western media ‘coverage’ of Russia is incredibly dangerous, and it’s getting worse
By Glenn Diesen | RT | March 20, 2024
Western media coverage of every Russian election is bad. But this time it was even worse than usual.
Instead of lashing out at the incompetence on display, it’s more constructive to explore why rational discussions about the country continue to appear impossible.
Not to mention the dire consequences of the ongoing self-delusion.
Reason versus conformity to the group
One of the first things we learn in sociology is that humans are in a constant battle between instincts and reason. Over tens of thousands of years, we have developed the instinct to organise in groups as a source of security. This is the result of evolutionary biology as survival demands that we organise into “us” versus “them”. In-group loyalty is augmented by assigning contrasting identities of the virtuous “us” versus the evil “other”, which helps stop an individual from straying too far from the pack.
Yet, human beings are also equipped with reason and thus the ability to assess objective reality independent of their immediate circle. In international relations, it’s imperative to place yourself in the shoes of the opponent. The rationality required to see the world through the perspective of the “other” is vital for reaching mutual understanding, reducing tensions, and pursuing a workable peace.
Every successful peace process and reconciliation in history – from Northern Ireland to negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa – has been based on this.
We expect journalists to be objective in their reporting of reality, which is especially important during war. But this seems to be almost impossible, especially during conflicts. When human beings experience external threats, their herd instincts are triggered as society demands group loyalty and we punish those who deviate. The political obedience demanded during war time usually results in the weakening of freedom of speech, the role of journalism, and democracy.
Why did Russians vote for Putin?
So, how can we understand the reasons for President Vladimir Putin’s immense popularity in Russia and his landslide victory?
If we use our reason and resist our tribal instincts, it should not be difficult to understand the popularity of Putin. While the 1990s was a golden period for the West, it was a nightmare for Russians. The economy collapsed and society disintegrated with truly horrific consequences.
The country’s security also collapsed, as NATO expansion meant there was no chance to agree an inclusive European security architecture. This had been outlined in the Charter of Paris for a New Europe in 1990 and the OSCE founding documents.
A weakened Russia meant that its interests could be ignored, and NATO was able to invade Moscow’s ally Yugoslavia, in violation of international law.
When Putin took over the presidency on 31 December 1999, it was commonplace in the West to predict that Russia would share the fate of the Soviet Union. That is eventual collapse.
However, Russia has instead become the largest economy in Europe (by PPP), its society has healed from the disastrous 1990s, its military might has been restored, and new international partners have been found in the East and Global South, as evidenced by the growing role of BRICS.
Furthermore, most Russians believe it’s not a good idea to have major disruptions to leadership in the middle of a NATO-Russia proxy war in Ukraine that is deemed an existential threat. Don’t change horses in midstream as the American proverb, often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, advises.
Speaking of the US, the late Mikhail Gorbachev – who was immensely popular there – did not shy away from criticising Putin, when he was still with us. However, he nevertheless argued that Putin “saved Russia from the beginning of a collapse”.
Today, any Western journalist repeating this would be immediately branded as a “Putinist” – implying a betrayal of the “us”. Western journalists cannot acknowledge the immense achievements of Russia since 1999 as it could be interpreted as lending legitimacy and signalling support for the “bad” side.
The price of self-delusion
Arguments are not judged by the extent they reflect an objective reality, rather they are assessed by how they are seen to express support or condemnation of Russia. Conformity to a narrative signals in-group loyalty, and the desire to deprive opponents of legitimacy limits what is allowed to be discussed.
Acknowledging Putin’s achievements over the past 25 years is treated as expressing support for him, which is tantamount to treason.
Meanwhile, journalists hardly ever discuss Moscow’s security concerns and the extent to which our competing interests can be harmonised. Instead, Russian policies are conveyed by referring to derogatory descriptions of Putin’s character.
As in our other wars, conflicts are explained by the presence of a bad man and if we could just make him go away, then the natural order of peace would be restored. Putin, the narrative contends, is our most recent reincarnation of Hitler and we constantly live in the 1940s where an adversary must be defeated and not appeased.
How can journalists then explain to their audience Putin’s popularity and the reasons for his huge personal vote when it is not allowed to say anything positive about the Russian president? Unable to live in reality and unable to place ourselves in the shoes of the opponent – how are we supposed to have sensible analysis and policies? As I always warned my students of international relations: Do not hate your rivals, it produces poor and dangerous analysis!
Making self-delusion virtuous comes at a high price. How can the West pursue diplomacy and work with Putin when he is presented as the embodiment of evil and an illegitimate leader? Even explaining Russian policies is condemned as legitimising Russian policies, which is deemed to be propaganda that must not be given a platform. People conform to the good versus evil mantra as it feels virtuous and patriotic to signal that they support the in-group and loathe the out-group. But how can we pursue our interests when we have committed ourselves to self-delusion and have banned reality from our analysis?
I have attempted to explain for two years why the anti-Russian sanctions were doomed to fail and why Russia will win the war, only to be told that it is Russian propaganda to undermine support for sanctions and to challenge the narrative of a pending Ukrainian victory. Reality be damned! Ignoring reality results in a distorted picture of Russia which predictably leads to miscalculations. How could Russia as a “gas station masquerading as a country” defeat the most draconian Western sanctions and see its economy not only survive, but by some measures even thrive? Why would Russians unite under an existential threat when we cannot acknowledge the role played by NATO in that regard?
Sigmund Freud explored the extent to which instinctive group psychology could diminish the rationality of the individual. Freud’s ideas were further developed by his nephew, Edward Bernays, who became the father of modern political propaganda. Over a century ago, Walter Lippman cautioned group psychology, managed with propaganda, as it came with a heavy price. Yielding to the instinct of viewing conflict as a struggle between the virtuous “us” versus the evil “other” implies that peace requires defeating the adversary, while a workable solution becomes tantamount to appeasement.
What better explains the current failure of rational analysis and the resulting collapse of diplomacy?
Glenn Diesen is a Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal.
Israel deploys army of bots to spread anti-UNRWA propaganda: Report
The Cradle | March 19, 2024
Israel is executing an online influence campaign using hundreds of fake social media accounts to advance “Israeli interests” among progressive western audiences, including US lawmakers, Haaretz reported on 19 March, citing an investigation by Israeli media watchdog group Fake Reporter.
The campaign is focused specifically on amplifying reports claiming the involvement of UNRWA workers in the 7 October attack on Israel. As The Cradle has reported previously, Israel provided no evidence for its claims, which were part of a campaign to compel western nations to cut funding to the agency. UNRWA plays a crucial role in delivering aid to Palestinians amid Israel’s campaign to impose famine in Gaza.
Researchers at Fake Reporter pinpointed three fake ‘news sites’ specifically created for the operation. The sites amplified reports copied from other real news outlets, such as CNN, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, The Jerusalem Post, and The Times of Israel, which promoted Israel’s narrative about the war.
Hundreds of fake social media accounts then intensively promoted the “reports” from the specially-created websites and other news outlets.
The three websites at the center of the campaign were established before the war in Gaza but became active only after it began.
The fake social media accounts seemed to be ‘cyborgs,’ meaning they operate using a combination of artificial intelligence and real people with fake online personalities. The avatars claimed to portray average US citizens, including white, Jewish, and African–American ones.
The avatars were all created on the same date, used the same profile photos and naming conventions, and shared other characteristics that indicate they are all part of the same network, Fake Reporter found.
Over 500 fake accounts were opened for the campaign on Facebook, Instagram, and X.
Their avatars began to post messages about a wide array of topics, including the alleged lack of safety for Jewish Americans on college campuses, discrimination against Jewish students, and false allegations Hamas committed mass rape on 7 October.
At the end of January, after acquiring tens of thousands of followers, the fake accounts pivoted toward spreading Israel’s false allegations about UNRWA employees participating in the 7 October attack.
The avatars worked to inorganically amplify the ‘shocking’ and ‘disturbing’ allegations about UNRWA.
They responded to social media posts by US lawmakers, influencers, and prominent news outlets.
The campaign’s avatars targeted posts by African–American Democratic lawmakers, including Ritchie Torres, Cori Bush, and Jamal Bowman, who received the most such comments.
Haaretz noted that targeting Democratic African–American lawmakers seemed to be an attempt to counter the wave of support they have given to Palestinians amid Israel’s ongoing campaign of Genocide in Gaza.
The EU adopts a ‘Media Freedom’ law, where ‘freedom’ doesn’t mean what you think it does
By Rachel Marsden | RT | March 16, 2024
The EU’s new Media Freedom Act has now been voted into law, with 464 votes for, 92 against, and 65 abstentions.
There are some news outlets whose coverage of the vote I’d like to see. Like RT’s, where you’re reading this right now. But anyone who’s viewing this from inside the European Union’s bastion of democracy and freedom is likely doing so via a VPN connection routed through somewhere outside the bloc, to circumvent its press censorship.
Nothing in this new law suggests that this will change, or that there will be increased access to information and analysis for the average person. Such improved freedoms might lead to people making up their own minds rather than having various flavors of a similar narrative served up for mass consumption. As has become par for the course in so-called Western democracies, inconvenient facts and analysis will still be dismissed as “disinformation” and criticism of the establishment still qualified as an effort to sow division – as though dissent itself wasn’t supposed to be proof of a healthy and vibrant democracy.
So, now that we’ve gotten out of the way any hope of lifting the EU’s top-down censorship in the absence of due process, exactly what kind of lip service does this new law pay to the lofty notion of media freedom?
No spying on journalists or pressing them to disclose their sources. Well, unless you’re one of the countries that lobbied to be able to keep doing this – like France, Italy, Malta, Greece, Cyprus, Sweden, and Finland – so basically, a quarter of EU countries. Oh, but they have to invoke national-security concerns in order to do so. Which, as we know, they’re very discerning about. Like, they didn’t at all implement a virtual police state and extend its powers under the guise of fighting a virus with which French President Emmanuel Macron kept saying they were “at war.” Nor did Amnesty International point out the sweeping “Orwellian” trend across Europe, at least as far back as 2017, of exploiting domestic terrorist attacks to permanently embed what were supposed to be extraordinary powers into criminal law, via measures like “overly broad definitions of terrorism.” So, no doubt they’ll be equally reasonable when slapping the “national security threat” label on a journalist whose work they want to peek at.
At least now, under this new law, they do have to fully inform any targeted journalist of the steps being taken against them.
Another thing that changes is that there’s to be a centralized database into which “all news and current affairs outlets regardless of their size will have to publish information about their owners,” according to an EU press release. May we propose a first candidate for that? The NGO Reporters Without Borders has praised this new law as a “major step forward for the right to information within the European Union.” The same NGO also just launched a “Svoboda” (Russian for “freedom”) satellite package eventually consisting “of up to 25 independent Russian language radio and television channels” aimed at Russia, Ukraine, and the Baltics. The launch took place at the EU parliament, in the presence of EU “values and transparency” commissioner (yes, that’s a real title), Vera Jourova, who has said in support of the new media law that “it is a threat to those who want to use the power of the state, also the financial one, to make the media dependent on them.” But she has also said about this new Russia-targeting initiative that the EU state needs to “use all possible means to ensure that their work, that facts and information can reach Russian-speaking people.” This is the same person who advocated in favor of banning Russia-linked media outlets in the EU.
Anyway, you first, guys. Show everyone else how it’s done. Also, does this mean that all financial interests in the form of advertising spending will also have to be declared by corporate media? Because state-backed media platforms are already transparent; it’s the much more discretionary interests underpinning the more commercial platforms that tend to be much less obvious to audiences. Audiences may not know or understand, for example, why a particular corporate media outlet might focus on a particular nation state with softball interviews, travel pieces, and fluffy documentaries, and treating it with kid gloves in news coverage, when in reality the same country is pumping a ton of ad revenues into the place.
In any case, Queen Ursula von der Leyen’s battalion of bureaucratic desk jockeys is set to grow in ranks now with a new “European Board for Media Services” coming online as a result of the new law. Because freedom isn’t going to police itself, pal.
The name itself Media Freedom Act really is the first clue that it’s probably not all that much about freedom. Kind of like how the “European Peace Facility” fund is used to buy weapons, or the “election” of the handpicked EU Commissioner is really just what any normal country would call a confirmation vote.
It’s a pretty safe bet that whenever the EU kicks the virtue-signaling into overdrive, using feel-good language to sell it, the reality is probably the opposite of what’s advertised.
Rachel Marsden is a columnist, political strategist, and host of independently produced talk-shows in French and English.
The more thoroughly exposed the CIA’s true face, the better
Mother of all disorder Illustration: Liu Rui/GT
Global Times | March 15, 2024
Reuters exclusively reported on Thursday that, according to a former US official with direct knowledge of highly confidential operations, then-US president Donald Trump authorized the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to launch secret operations on Chinese social media aimed at “turning public opinion in China against its government.” Many people don’t find this information surprising or even consider it “news.” The US is a habitual offender, using various covert means to foment “peaceful evolution” and “color revolutions” in other countries, with the CIA being the main force employed to this end. For other countries, the US’ pervasive influence is everywhere, visible and tangible, so there is no need for exposés.
We are still unclear what the specific purpose of the “former US official” was in leaking the information to Reuters. A CIA spokesperson declined to comment on the existence of the program, its goals or impact. A spokesperson for the Biden administration’s National Security Council also declined to comment, which means it was neither confirmed nor denied. The US intelligence community often uses a mixture of false and true information to create confusion, a tactic that was used on Edward Snowden. The Reuters report is valuable, but needs to be further processed to filter out the true and useful parts.
Firstly, this report carries a strong defense of US penetration into China. It portrays the proactive offensive of the US’ cognitive warfare against China as a passive counterattack against “cyber attacks” on the US from China and Russia. In reality, portraying themselves as the weak or victimized party and labeling their hegemonic actions as “justice” is a part of the US’ cognitive warfare against foreign countries.
One US official interviewed by Reuters even said it felt like China was attacking the US with “steel baseball bats,” while the US could only fight back with “wooden ones,” showing his exaggerated and clumsy acting skills. The US has never used a “wooden stick.” Over the past few decades, the CIA has overthrown or attempted to overthrow at least 50 legitimate international governments. There are also statistics showing that from 1946 to 2000, the US attempted to influence elections in 45 countries 81 times to achieve regime change. As a habitual offender of manipulating public opinions, the US has long established a series of tactics in its targeted propaganda, information dissemination, event creation, rumor fabrication, incitement of public opinion, and media manipulation. It constantly creates new tactics and uses new technologies according to changing circumstances. This is an open secret. The US dressing itself up as a “little lamb” only has a comedic effect, not a propaganda effect.
Next, as the US’ intervention and infiltration in other countries are covert operations, this disclosure provides an opportunity for the outside world to glimpse into the specific methods used by the US. For example, the whistleblower admitted that the CIA had formed a small team of operatives, using bogus online identities to spread damaging stories about the Chinese government while simultaneously disseminating defamatory content to overseas news agencies. This corroborates with previous statements by CIA Director William Burns, indicating increased resources being allocated for intelligence activities against China, once again confirming the existence of the US “1450” (internet water army) team targeting China.
The whistleblower admitted that the CIA has targeted public opinion in Southeast Asia, Africa, and the South Pacific region, spreading negative narratives about the Belt and Road Initiative. This indicates that in the US-instigated propaganda war against China, the global public opinion arena, especially in “Global South” countries, is their main strategic target. Various “China threat” theories circulating in third-party countries, as consistently pointed out by China, are all being operated by the US intelligence agencies behind the scenes.
The US has never concealed its hegemonic aims, nor does it regard encroachment on other countries’ sovereignty as something to be ashamed of, which is even more infuriating than the hegemonic behavior itself. American economist Jeffrey Sachs criticized the CIA’s blatant violation of international law in his commentary last month, stating that it is “devastating to global stability and the US rule of law,” leading to “an escalating regional war, hundreds of thousands of deaths, and millions of displaced people.” He also criticized the mainstream American media for failing to question or investigate the CIA. In fact, far from acting as watchdogs, mainstream American media has served as an accomplice. How many rumors manufactured by the CIA have been spread through the mouths of mainstream American media? When did they reflect and correct themselves?
We also see that the intentions of the US intelligence agencies are even more sinister. As admitted in the revelations, they aim to force China to spend valuable resources in defending against “cognitive warfare,” keeping us busy with “chasing ghosts,” and disrupting our development pace. First of all, we appreciate their reminder. At the same time, we will not allow external factors to interfere with our strategic determination to manage our own affairs well. For China and the world, the more fully, clearly, and thoroughly the CIA exposes itself, the deeper people will understand its true nature, and the stronger their ability to discern the truth will become. Keeping the CIA busy to no end or failing in their attempts is the best preventive effect.
Culture Warriors Spread Disinfo on ‘Haitian Cannibals’
By Patrick Macfarlane | The Libertarian Institute | March 14, 2024
In the first few years of the 2020s, the world witnessed a revolution in the dissemination of atrocity propaganda. Thanks to the proliferation of social media, smartphone ownership, and artificial intelligence, atrocity claims can now be manufactured, disseminated, and, thankfully, debunked in real time.
Although technology may be evolving, lies do not change much.
During World War I, the British claimed Germans boiled the corpses of their war dead to make fat and glycerin for munitions. More recently, we’ve seen accusations of industrial organ harvesting in Xinjiang, China and claims that Hamas “beheaded babies” in Israel. A key element of these atrocity stories, and many like them, is their over-the-top cartoonization of violence.
Amidst violent political upheaval in Haiti, a narrative has emerged that Haitian society is devolving into widespread cannibalism. A video even emerged purporting to show popular opposition figure, Jimmy “Barbeque” Cherizier, cutting the flesh off a burning corpse and eating it.
This propagandistic narrative comes at a crucial juncture where Western powers have for three years failed to drum up yet another foreign military intervention in this ill-fated nation.
After the assassination of Haitian President Jovenel Moise in 2021, Haiti was ruled by U.S.-installed President Ariel Henry. Many Haitians viewed Henry as an American puppet leader. Because Henry was unable to stabilize the country, the United States pushed the United Nations to deploy a peace keeping force to his nation.
Two weeks ago, Henry left Haiti for Kenya, attempting to secure Joe Biden’s long-desired UN security deployment. In his absence, Haiti’s organized opposition united under the leadership of Jimmy “Barbeque” Cherizier. The united opposition launched an armed revolution that dragged Haiti further into discord, albeit with the goal of creating a truly independent and prosperous country. Unable to safely return to Port-au-Prince, Henry resigned on Tuesday.
Last Saturday, reports began to circulate that Haiti was under siege by cannibal gangs. However, the claims were not reported by mainstream outlets. Instead, they were made on X (formerly Twitter) by popular culture war influencers. These influencers used these reports to sow fear that the unrest will spread to the United States through immigration. With 10.4 million views as of this writing, Malaysian national Ian Miles Cheong circulated the first and most viewed Haiti cannibalism report. The report was furthered, among others, by Dom Lucre, Jake Shields, Tim Pool, and Libs of Tiktok.
Given his position as the wealthiest man in the world and the owner of X, Elon Musk has an effect, intended or not, of legitimizing the information he interacts with on the platform. As is the case with Cheong’s cannibalism report, the information might not be reliable. Nevertheless, Musk drove a number of his 176.3 million followers to Cheong’s post by replying to it.
So, just what was the problem with Cheong’s report? He doesn’t have a source.
On Tuesday, Cheong posted a screenshot of an email he ostensibly received from NBC Reporter David Ingram asking where he got his information.
In the email, Ingram asks Cheong if his cannibalism claim originates from the “unnamed source” referred to by a Daily Express U.S. article. Cheong ridiculed the question, saying, “I just received a request for comment from NBC News asking me to prove cannibalism exists in Haiti. I wish I was making this up.”
Despite Cheong’s mockery, Ingram’s question was legitimate. Cheong made a specific claim in his post. He did not claim “cannibalism exists in Haiti.” He claimed “cannibal gangs are besieging the national palace in Port-au-Prince.”
While Ingram did not link to the article in his email, he was likely referring to this March 5 piece, which states:
… a journalist on the ground told Daily Express US that cannibalism has been witnessed on the streets as the violence reaches “unprecedented” levels… Speaking anonymously, they said: “Haiti is living in a total chaotic situation right now. It is total chaos everywhere, especially in the capital where I am right now”… Following the interview, the journalist said via message: “Cannibalism is not widespread, but definitely an indication of the worsening situation. It definitely happens on a few occasions.”
If Cheong did indeed source his report from the Daily Express U.S. piece, the original claim is dubious. The source is hearsay; the anonymous reporter was told by alleged witnesses that they observed cannibalism. The reporter then told the Daily Express U.S. that cannibalism “definitely happens on a few occasions.” He did not say that he had personally witnessed cannibalism, neither did he allege a specific incident where cannibalism took place.
Furthermore, Cheong mischaracterized the Daily Express report. Cheong’s initial tweet claimed “Cannibal gangs are besieging the national palace in Port-au-Prince.” Cheong transformed the report from “cannibalism definitely happens on a few occasions,” to “cannibal gangs are besieging the national palace[.]”
Another popular culture war influencer, Dom Lucore, subsequently circulated a video of a Haitian gangster eating burnt flesh from a charred human corpse. Lucore claimed the man in the video was opposition leader Jimmy “Barbeque” Cherizier.
Despite being corrected by Dan Cohen, a journalist who personally filmed a documentary featuring Cherizier, Lucore doubled down on the claim.
Although the video probably does depict a Haitian gangster eating human flesh, it is clearly not Jimmy Cherizier. Further, the video is several years old and not connected in any way to what is occurring on the ground in Haiti right now. There is no evidence to suggest that Hatians are eating each other en masse or that criminal gangs are using cannibalism as a weapon of terror.
Does cannibalism exist in Haiti? Apparently, in isolated incidents, yes. But cannibalism has existed there for hundreds of years.
Americans are understandably concerned about illegal immigration. However, they fail to appreciate that this false story supports the case for U.S.-led intervention in Haiti, something the Biden administration has desired for years. A foreign invasion of Haiti would further traumatize the Haitian people and certainly increase the amount of refugees seeking asylum in the United States. As with our prior interventions in Haiti, American taxpayers would be forced to foot the bill.
The CIA Admits Its Long-Time Presence in Ukraine
By Brad Pearce | The Libertarian Institute | March 13, 2024
On February 25, The New York Times published an article titled “The Spy War: How the CIA Secretly Helps Ukraine Fight Putin.” This report was not the result of any leak, but was clearly authorized from the highest level: the CIA brought reporters in to tell the story. Though many spoke on the condition of anonymity to “discuss intelligence matters and sensitive diplomacy,” they do not even create the pretense that this is a story that the CIA doesn’t want the public to know. The clear purpose, stated almost explicitly near the end of the article, is to guilt the Republicans in Congress into supporting Ukraine aid, with the argument that we are “in too deep” and cannot abandon them like our erstwhile allies in Afghanistan. The impact of the article was muted and it was barely discussed outside of those critical of Ukraine aid, because neither the CIA nor the Times seem to have realized the implications of these admissions: it shows that the post-Maidan government of Ukraine pro-actively made itself the base of a hostile conspiracy against Russia.
The short summary of what The New York Times presents is that after the U.S.-backed “Maidan Revolution” in Ukraine in 2014, the newly appointed spymaster went to the intelligence headquarters to find that all of the files had been destroyed when the previous government left. He immediately called the CIA and MI6 to form an alliance to counter Russia. They created a specialized anti-Russia division, staffed exclusively by people born after the fall of the USSR (at that time, no older than 23) and began training them in spying on and sabotaging Russia. The Ukrainian intelligence agents were anti-Russia zealots who expressed a hatred of all Russian speakers, not simply opposition to Putin’s regime or Russian imperialism. The CIA were unable to control their proteges, who carried out violent missions against Russia and the allied “People’s Republics.” This is described as an American “beachhead” against Russia in Ukraine. Since the February 2022 invasion, the CIA has been involved in acts of war against Russia from a network of U.S.-funded bases across Ukraine.
We haven’t heard any of the normal pontificating about “operational security” and “sources and methods” since this was released. The CIA wants us to read this investigation, and the government isn’t pretending otherwise. Besides the transparent purpose—that it should guilt people into funding Ukraine—there are a few other theories as to why this was released. The first would be that it is a “limited hangout,” meaning they are admitting this much in the hopes people don’t look further into it. The next is that it is what some call “pre-bunking,” which is to say that they know a scandalous story is coming out and this is to get ahead of it. But it takes at least a few weeks to produce a story of this size, if not a couple of months, so it would be really risky to release this hoping it would come out before other information that they could not control the release of; the Times claims to have conducted over 200 interviews with only two authors. The other possibility is that it signifies a coming break up between the CIA and Ukrainian intelligence, which is possible, given that The New York Times published another article titled, “Mutual Frustrations Arise in US-Ukraine Alliance,” which described the relationship in terms clearly meant to invoke a troubled marriage. However, the most likely answer is the simplest: they are proud of what they have done, and think by telling the world it will encourage more funding.
By publishing this in The New York Times, the idea that the CIA was highly active in an anti-Russian conspiracy operating in Ukraine is another thing that has moved from the realm of “conspiracy theory” to “of course it’s true, and here’s why that’s a good thing.” But for all of this, there has been very little discourse about the story, and most of that has been from skeptics of arming Ukraine. It did not have the impact that they wanted, but it seems to have not had impact at all. The supporters of Ukraine throughout the media do not have anything to say about this specific Times article, despite that publication being the gate-keeper of respectable discourse and usually once it prints something it can be discussed everywhere. If this was a ploy to get more funding, it doesn’t seem to have worked.
What both the CIA and The New York Times failed to understand about their story is that it reinforces many of Russia’s key points. The most important of which is that we have constantly been told that Russia presents a threat to all of its neighbors and that Finland and Poland need to be afraid (though they certainly don’t act like it) and that if Russia isn’t stopped in Ukraine they will roll their tanks into Brussels. It doesn’t seem anyone actually believes this, but they say it. The Times exposed a different story, which shows that, as Russia has said, Ukraine was a unique situation for a variety of reasons. Per the Times, it is true that an anti-Russia spy conspiracy was centered in Ukraine, by people who hate all Russian speakers. It’s obvious to a reader that these are drastically irresponsible people driven by ethnic hatred-—towards the people who inhabit a region they want us to help them reconquer and rule. It is a different question if any of what we learn in this article “justifies” a large military invasion which has caused enormous human suffering on both sides, but the CIA has chosen to admit that post-Maidan Ukraine went to great efforts to pose a threat to Russia. This shows that there is no reason to believe Russia poses a threat to any neighbors who would choose to pursue a policy of peace and good relations. I suppose it is no surprise that they would admit everything we are meant to believe about the war is a lie, but expect us to support their war anyway.
Featured Video
Max Otte: How Germany Destroyed Itself – No Turning Back
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Three Reasons Macron is a Hypocrite when it Comes to Venezuela
By Jim Carey | Geopolitics Alert | January 29, 2019
Paris – French President Emmanuel Macron recently voiced support for protesters in Venezuela as his own country has been ground to a halt by protests every weekend.
There is an overused saying that “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” While these few words may be cliche there is definitely one man that they can be applied to after this weekend: Emmanuel Macron.
Even though the French President is into the third month of protests against his government, he has decided to weigh in on the legitimacy of another country’s government and his latest outrageous statements just highlight the hypocrisy of Macron and Western leaders in general. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
loongtip on A Funny Thing Happened on the… loongtip on EU free trade pact on hold as… John Edward Kendrick on Regime Change In Iran Is The F… Bill Francis on Australia Passes New Hate Spee… seversonebcfb985d9 on Australia Passes New Hate Spee… Bill Francis on Britain’s AI Policing Plan Tur… loongtip on Miami Beach Resident Questione… loongtip on Israeli agricultural export co… loongtip on The War On Free Speech In Aust… seversonebcfb985d9 on Scott Ritter Hiding the Domina… Richard Ong on Europe Economic Panic Kate on Bird Flu Outbreak 40 Miles Fro…
Aletho News- Max Otte: How Germany Destroyed Itself – No Turning Back
- Why Trump’s ‘Board Of Peace’ Is Destined To Crash And Burn
- ‘Board of Peace’ resembles a club that turns the world into the ‘law of the jungle’
- After the headlines fade: Gaza, abandoned while the genocide persists
- Introducing Mossad Farsi, the Motto and the Methods
- How Syria’s Kurds were erased from the US-led endgame
- Trump presses aides to draw up ‘decisive options’ for strikes on Iran: Report
- Regime Change In Iran Is The Final Phase Of The ‘Clean Break’ Strategy
- How many regime change wars before we wake up?
- When Greenland divides the North Atlantic allies, the world is astonished!
- If Americans Knew
- Another baby dies of cold in Gaza, as Rafah crossing remains locked down – Not a ceasefire Day 103
- Brutal Beatings, Arson, and Impunity: A Palestinian Plant Nursery Becomes a Target for Settler Pogroms
- On Iran’s protests, Israeli hypocrisy knows no limits
- A Cease-fire for Israelis and a War for Palestinians
- ‘When will Baba come back?’ Gaza’s widows and orphans struggle to survive
- Genocide research institute levels accusations against Germany for denying Israel’s genocide against Palestinians
- Over 1,200 Israeli truce violations in Gaza – Not a ceasefire Day 102
- Trump has created a monster: Gaza Board of Peace – Not a ceasefire Day 101
- As world leaders squabble over controlling Gaza, another baby freezes to death – Not a ceasefire Day 100
- Trump “Board of Peace” for Gaza is stacked with Israel supporters – Not a ceasefire Day 99
- No Tricks Zone
- As German Gas Storage Dips Dangerously Low…Shortage Hardly Avoidable
- New Study: Brazil’s Relative Sea Level Was 2+ Meters Higher And SSTs 3-4°C Warmer 6000 Years Ago
- Philosopher Schopenhauer: Climate Science Certainty Stems From Stupidity, Ignorance
- New Study: Species Extinction Rates Declining Since 1980 – ‘Climate Change Is Not An Important Threat’
- Denmark Places Climate Protection Above Animal Welfare, Poisoning And Culling Cows
- New Study: Greenland Was 3-7°C Warmer And Far Less Glaciated Than Today 6000-8000 Years Ago
- German Media Report That Current Frigid Weather Can Be Explained By Arctic Warming!
- Berlin Blackout Shows Germany’s $5 Trillion Green Scheme Is “Left-Green Ideological Pipe Dream”
- Modeling Error In Estimating How Clouds Affect Climate Is 8700% Larger Than Alleged CO2 Forcing
- Berlin’s Terror-Blackout Enters 4th Day As Tens Of Thousands Suffer In Cold Without Heat!
Aletho News 