In New Bird Flu Scare Comes Tacit Admission Coronavirus Was Not a Big Deal
By Adam Dick | Peace and Prosperity Blog | April 5, 2024
“Bird flu pandemic could be ‘100 times worse’ than COVID, scientists warn.” That is the headline at the New York Post for one of many media reports out Thursday spreading the latest pandemic scare.
Note the “100 times worse” comparison. Why not “nearly as bad,” “as bad,” or even “twice as bad” as coronavirus? The answer is that the fearmongers know that most people are on to the coronavirus hoax whereby a run-of-the-mill health threat was exaggerated to justify tyrannical measures including forcing termination of a vast amount of in-person interaction, mandating mask wearing, and even pushing and mandating experimental “vaccine” shots marketed as safe and effective despite being both dangerous and ineffective. All the while, good early treatment options were suppressed, resulting in greater sickness and death as well as expansive use of dangerous medical procedures and pharmaceuticals for people whose serious illness could have been prevented.
The world could be turned upside down over coronavirus because of a concerted effort of government and media to paint coronavirus as both extremely dangerous to everyone and something for which there were not already available good medical countermeasures. Both of those assertions were false. But, at the time, many people bought into the charade and trusted that “the science” propounded by the government and media selected “experts” required radical changes in human behavior, widespread participation on novel medical experimentation, and extreme restraints on liberty.
But now it is a new day. Looking back on the coronavirus scare, increasingly people realize, including some who are ashamed to discuss the matter, that they were duped. And they don’t want to be duped again. “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” the saying goes.
Yet, trickery is a go-to tactic for expanding power. The government and its business allies in medical and other fields aren’t about to give up on that tactic that reaped such huge gains during the coronavirus scare. Thus the ploy of tacitly admitting what has become common knowledge — that coronavirus was way overblown — so that the repression and profit process can be repeated anew to deal with a threat that, trust us, is this time really, really, really bad.
And what scientist does the New York Post article quote to support the claim that scientists say the bird flu is “100 times worse than COVID” declared in the article’s title? His name is John Fulton, described in the article as “a pharmaceutical industry consultant for vaccines.”
Oh brother: Here we go again. Or do we? If enough people stand up and say “no you don’t this time,” this new dangerous charade can be stopped in its tracks.
New hacking allegations against China aren’t what they seem
By Timur Fomenko | RT | April 5, 2024
In March, the UK, in conjunction with the US and other members of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, accused China of engaging in a state-sponsored hacking campaign against them. In response to the alleged ‘attack’ they launched coordinated sanctions against a small group of hackers and their associated businesses.
The sanctions were particularly big news in Britain, where the government suddenly decided that Beijing had been behind a hack on the electoral commission three years ago. Notably, the country’s Conservative party-aligned newspapers all pushed this narrative in an aggressive fashion.
These accusations by the Five Eyes nations are not so much genuine concerns as they are a deliberate and opportunistic act of political theatre which, largely driven by the US, seeks to slander China for diplomatic and political gain. The sanctions, although narrow in scope and thus meaningless, are designed to try and send a message to and about China. It is essentially a fearmongering campaign, which seeks to both undermine Beijing’s engagement with other countries and serve domestic political purposes in the US.
The rhythm of US escalation and de-escalation with China
The US has an adept foreign policy whereby it intentionally chooses to escalate and de-escalate tensions with China at opportune moments, which is precisely why calls for “engagement” with Beijing coming from Washington D.C. cannot be trusted. The US does not change its goals or its policies, only its tactics in consideration of what suits it at that particular moment. Hence it has always alternated between overtures and deliberate provocations. It usually does so by having a certain report or development leaked to the media at an opportunistic time, in order to craft a particular narrative which mandates a certain set of reactions and policy responses.
To give some examples of such, the Trump administration played down tensions with China directly in 2019, even amidst the Hong Kong crisis, in order to secure a “trade deal” with Beijing. Once it got what it wanted by 2020, and the Covid-19 pandemic struck, it deliberately unleashed a full-on crusade against Beijing on every front. Similarly, the Biden administration came into office and then immediately upped tensions with China on the Xinjiang issue in order to damage China’s ties with Europe in a build-up to coordinated sanctions as a display of transatlantic unity.
After this was done, it then decided it wanted to “cool” things down for a bit and establish “guardrails” so the rhetoric guns went silent for a few months as Washington reached out to Beijing. Then, as the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics came, it took the “Xinjiang card” off the shelf again with a number of timed leaks and publications geared towards supporting a Winter Olympics boycott, as well as a sweeping ban on all Xinjiang goods under the premise of “forced labour” at that time.
What we see is that the US does not truly de-escalate with China, it “blows hot and cold” and essentially manipulates the media cycle to pursue its policy preferences as it sees fit. This means that major issues pertaining to China only tend to appear when there is an agenda serving it.
The newest phase
Now, the Biden administration has made a political design to escalate tensions with China by accusing it, in coordination with the Five Eyes, of state-backed hacking and cybercrime. The fact that the British government would sit on such an accusation for three years suggests both clear political purpose and timing. The question is, why? First, we are approaching a Presidential election in the US. It was always an inevitability that the administration would want to appear “tough” on China to prevent the issue from being used as an attack point by Biden’s rival, Donald Trump. As seen in 2020, an election year tends to become a year of very aggressive rhetoric and extreme theatrics.
Secondly, there is the goal of undermining China’s engagement with Europe. It has been publicly announced that Xi Jinping will visit a number of European countries in May, including France. As stated above, the US, with the support of the Five Eyes countries, actively seeks to damage Chinese diplomacy with Europe by weaponizing negative publicity in order to narrow political space for engagement.
What we see from this is that the US engages China on its own terms, but seeks to prevent those it deems as “allies” from doing the same, and thus resorts to psychological warfare through the manipulation of mass media.
In conclusion, when one sees these strategies being utilised, one recognises that the Western media has far less independence and impartiality than it claims to have, but is indirectly subject to the preferences of US policy. When the White House says “jump”, reporters ask, “how high?” and thus we see that a new propaganda campaign has been cultivated against Beijing, but of course, we should not be blind to the reality that there is no greater weaponisation of cyberspace and espionage in the world than the system created by the Five Eyes. And are we really going to pretend the CIA doesn’t hack anyone?
Sy Hersh: US Warning of Terrorist Attack in Russia Had ‘Urgent’ Mark, Didn’t Mention Crocus
Sputnik – 03.04.2024
WASHINGTON – The US warning about an imminent terrorist attack at a concert venue in Russia was marked “urgent,” but contrary to media reports did not identify Crocus City Hall as the target, Pulitzer Prize-winning US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh wrote in his new article, citing a US official familiar with the matter.
The CIA allegedly provided the warning to Russian intelligence before the concert at the Crocus City Hall marking it “urgent,” meaning that the data in it “was credible and near term,” Hersh quoted the official as saying.
“The highly secret report on the attack in Moscow was prepared by the Counterterrorism Center at CIA headquarters and delivered to the terrorism division of the Russian Federal Security Service located in the old KGB building in Moscow. Separate briefings were presented in person by the FBI officer at the embassy. This is an established relationship,” the official said.
The warning, however, did not mention Crocus City Hall near Moscow and only said that an attack was being planned at some “public gathering,” according to the official.
The information provided by the official is contrary to a Washington Post report published on Tuesday claiming that Crocus City Hall was specifically identified in the warning as the target of a terrorist attack.
On March 22, several armed men broke into Crocus City Hall, a major concert venue just outside Moscow, and started shooting at people. They also started a fire in one of the auditoriums, which was full of people ahead of a concert. The attack left 695 casualties, including 144 dead, according to the latest data from the Russian Emergencies Ministry.
The four main suspects in the case — all of them citizens of Tajikistan — tried to flee the scene in a car but were detained and charged with terrorism. Russian authorities believe the perpetrators planned to flee to Ukraine, where a safe haven had been arranged for them. An investigation is underway.
Later in March, The New York Times reported, citing European and US security officials, that the US intelligence agencies did not provide the Russian side with all the information they had about the threat of a terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall in the Moscow Region out of fear that Russian authorities might learn about their intelligence sources or methods of work.
Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) Director Alexander Bortnikov also said that the information transmitted by the United States on the preparation of a terrorist attack was of a general nature, and the Russian special services responded to it.
Samantha Power and the Power of a Word
BY DIANA JOHNSTONE • UNZ REVIEW • APRIL 3, 2024
Twenty-five years ago, NATO was bombing Serbia as the first performance in its new role. The collapse of the Soviet Union had deprived the military alliance of its initial official role of defending its member states from a theoretical communist threat. Under no threat and devoid of UN Security Council approval, NATO assumed the self-ordained role of virtuous defender of allegedly oppressed minorities by bombing what was left of largely dismantled Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999 on behalf of Albanian rebels in the Serbian province of Kosovo.
NATO’s air attacks on the Balkan nation were the practical application of a new post-Cold War doctrine. To succeed, this doctrine relied on Western media to report on crisis areas with the appropriate mixture of exaggerations, omissions and outright lies to justify NATO’s virtuous interventions. The military industrial complex could breathe easy and a new generation of journalists began successful careers eagerly spinning their reports to serve the new humanitarian war ideology.
None was more successful than Dublin-born Samantha Power, whose novice reports from Bosnia in the mid-1990s provided the basis for her 2002 book on “genocide” which “quickly became an international sensation, glowingly reviewed almost everywhere, a huge bestseller that won her a Pulitzer Prize and launched her career as a leading figure in human rights doctrine.” She has gone on from one top governmental post to another, a Washington star, urging the United States to intervene on moral grounds.
Samantha Power owes her remarkable success to her talent as a writer, her ambition, her striking presence, but not least to the man at the origins of the whole humanitarian war policy.
That was none other than Morton Isaac Abramowitz, a highly influential member of the foreign policy establishment and the main inventor of what would become the “R2P” (Responsibility to Protect) doctrine. The crucial policy contribution of Abramowitz is explained at the start of my 2002 book, Fools’ Crusade, as follows:[1]
As president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in the early 1990s, Abramowitz headed a project to develop a new U.S. foreign policy for the post-Cold War era. Rather than identifying “threats”, especially at a time when few threats could be seen, a successful new policy needed to combine promotion of U.S. interests with proclamation of U.S. “ideals”.
Theory and Practice
At the Carnegie Endowment in 1992, Abramowitz published the theory of the new U.S. “humanitarian intervention” policy as Self-Determination in the New World Order.
“The vision of a ‘new world order’ since 1990 has been a world with one superpower – the United States – in which the rule of law supplants the rule of the jungle, disputes are settled peacefully, aggression is firmly met by collective resistance, and all people are justly treated.”
That sounds very nice. But put into practice, “collective resistance” means NATO, and “all people are treated justly” depends on Washington’s preferences. The new rules-based order was not to be confused with traditional international law, based on national sovereignty. Globalization was making national sovereignty outdated (except for the United States). “Ideals” make rules more flexible.
The sovereign nation is being broken down subtly by the pressures of economic globalization. It may also be undermined from within, by domestic insurgencies. In the post-Cold War world, the Carnegie Endowment study noted, “groups within states are staking claims to independence, greater autonomy, or the overthrow of an existing government, all in the name of self-determination”. […] In the future, the authors announced, “humanitarian intervention will become increasingly unavoidable”. The United States will have the final word as to when and how to intervene.
Abramowitz subsequently helped put his theory into practice in crumbling Yugoslavia. He was the eminence grise behind U.S. diplomats, steering the events leading to the “Kosovo war” that split the province of Kosovo off from Serbia. He was advisor to the Kosovo Albanian delegation at the imitation “peace negotiations” staged at Rambouillet to provide an excuse for the bombing of Serbia. The moderate Albanian Kosovo leader Ibrahim Rugova was replaced by the armed gangster, Hashim Thaci. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright set terms no Serbian leader could accept, demanding the right to station NATO troops over the entire country, with full impunity. The Serb side was then blamed for the failure, and NATO began to bomb on March 24, 1999.
Samantha Steals her Way into Bosnia
Back in 1992, fresh out of Yale, 22-year-old Samantha Power was given a position as intern in the office of Abramowitz at the Carnegie Endowment. As a proofreader, she quickly absorbed the new official doctrine. At that time, her boss was obsessed with the conflicts in Bosnia as implicating the future of NATO. Determined to get to Bosnia where the action was, Samantha stole stationery from the neighboring office of Foreign Policy magazine and forged a letter from the editor to the head of the UN Press Office, asking that the UN provide her, as Foreign Policy’s “Balkan correspondent,” with “all necessary access.”[2]
From that time on, her work functioned precisely to advance the new “humanitarian intervention” policy of her mentor, Morton Abramowitz. She recalls that his influence helped her get increasingly important assignments – most crucially, writing about the Srebrenica massacre for The Washington Post.
With the Srebrenica reports, the term “genocide” emerged as the power word that could give NATO its new mission.
The Western press corps based in Sarajevo tended to become emotionally involved with the Muslim side which was its principal news source. Missing from their dispatches were reports on Muslim massacres of Serbs villages or on the well-armed Islamic fighters who joined the Muslim side from Afghanistan and Arab countries, some of them settling permanently in Bosnia.
When Bosnian Serb forces captured the Muslim base at Srebrenica in July 1995, they evacuated women, children and the aged to safety, while men fled, fearing retaliation. Many were killed in unclear circumstances.
Without reference to such context, Western media focused on reports of a massacre of 8,000 male prisoners as a unique event which branded the Serbs as the guilty party in the three-sided civil war. With the Srebrenica reports, the term “genocide” emerged as the power word that could give NATO its new mission.
Calling Srebrenica “genocide” provided the argument for NATO bombing: if Serbs committed genocide in Bosnia, it implied that Serbs were genocidal and risked committing genocide in Kosovo unless NATO intervened. This theory was supported by wildly inaccurate accusations voiced by leading Western politicians during the bombing campaign.
That was the story that was sold to the public by politicians and the media. From the start, the Serb majority in Yugoslavia had been portrayed as invaders in their own country, with everyone else as victims. Thus was destroyed the last semi-socialist, nonaligned country in Europe.
The Kosovo war indeed combined U.S. “interests and ideals”. The ideals were preventing a genocide that never would have taken place (and also, incidentally, preventing a negotiation that could have settled the whole conflict as well). The interests included the immediate construction by the Americans of a giant U.S. military base on the territory of Kosovo, once Serbian forces were obliged to leave.
Genocide and R2P
Samantha Power’s 2002 book was subtitled “America in the Age of Genocide”. To speak of the present as an “age of genocide” is wildly melodramatic, but the purpose is to place virtuous America in the center of drastic moral demands. America must save the world from its genocidal self. “Genocide” was thereby promoted as the most potent pretext for U.S. military intervention – precisely by deploring its absence, both in Bosnia and more convincingly, in Rwanda. The Clinton administration was certainly not going to intervene in Rwanda, because the bloody chaos was in fact favoring the conquest of Rwanda by Paul Kagame and his army, which had invaded Rwanda from Uganda in 1990. Kagame was a favored client of the United States. There was no reason for Washington to interfere with Kagame’s victory.
But the “failure to stop genocide” was an appeal to the liberal conscience to intervene later on, whenever the U.S. was in need a powerful argument to get rid of a someone it wanted to get rid of. Moammer Gaddafi had been on the U.S.-UK hit list for decades, but had made concessions to gain reconciliation. But when Gaddafi’s usual fundamentalist Islamic opponents in Tripoli used the 2011 “Arab spring” to raise protests, the “threat of genocide” alarm was raised on their behalf. In Washington, action to stop Gaddafi from “committing genocide” was urged by Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power, while Bernard Henri Lévy raised the alarm in Paris. NATO rose to the challenge, destroyed the most economically successful country on the African continent and murdered its leader, creating a flood of refugees to Europe and other disasters. Most of the liberal left cheered.
Today it is widely recognized that the Irak war was based on deceit and ended in disaster. Other U.S. wars are mostly conceded to have been unfortunate mistakes. There are doubts about Libya, due mainly to the refugee flow. But the destruction of Yugoslavia, and in particular the 1999 “Kosovo war”, is still widely accepted in the West as what it was arranged to appear: NATO’s generous humanitarian intervention to prevent “genocide” by racist Serbs against the oppressed Albanian minority.
The distortions of the Bosnia conflict and the Kosovo war were precisely the practical application of the Abramowitz policy: promote minority rebellions to break down national sovereignty and change governments the U.S. doesn’t like, while supplying NATO with a new geographically unlimited mission of “humanitarian intervention”. Yugoslavia was the starting point of the whole aggressive post-Cold War U.S. policy as “single superpower” determining the world order, using the idealistic pretexts set out by Abramowitz. Young Samantha Power, who was very smart, got the point and ambitiously cheated her way into a supporting role as reporter in the Bosnia spectacle, which she eventually transformed into an astonishingly successful career.
I was in Kosovo on my own in months prior to the NATO bombardment and saw quite clearly that in that small province, the Serbs were a frightened minority while Albanians were already tasting their future triumph. There was absolutely no danger of a Serbian “genocide” of Albanians. But Western editors kept sending in ignorant young aspiring journalists, on the lookout for some “Serb atrocity” that could advance their budding career. Editors rejected any report that went in a different direction. It was at that time just plain impossible to publish an unbiased report. I know from experience.
Above all, breaking up Yugoslavia was an exercise in subsequent efforts to undermine the Russian Federation, by inciting the Federation’s ethnic minorities against the Russians. Ukraine was the crucial battering ram. I always used to think of Ukraine when studying the conflicts in the Krajina regions of Croatia and Bosnia, as both words have the same root (border land) and suffered from similar conflicts, notably in World War II. Western powers had revived the Nazi-supported Croatian nationalism against the Serbs to break up Yugoslavia. They would revive much more virulent Nazi-supported Ukrainian nationalism against Russian-speakers in Eastern Ukraine, in an effort to weaken and eventually even break up the Russian Federation.
And for the United States, the humanitarian “ideals” of supporting minorities would be compensated by the major strategic “interest” of eventually gaining control of Crimea, and with it, Russia’s main naval base in Sebastopol. Putin did what any Russian leader not brain-dead would have done: he headed off this disaster by mobilizing the Russian inhabitants of Crimea to vote to return to Russia, which they had never chosen to leave. This obvious act of self-determination is denounced in the West as an invasion.
The Ideological Backlash
Unfortunately, the blatantly tragic misuse of the “humanitarian intervention” or R2P doctrine in Libya has not managed to achieve its discredit. It is threatened now by the danger that it is changing sides in the very global conflicts it has stimulated.
The referendum in Crimea was a democratic measure of self-determination that fit the Abramowitz standards. The Russian “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine in 2022 was partially motivated by the sort of consideration featured in the Abramowitz doctrine: defense of the population of Donbas, under attack from an ultranationalist regime in Kiev. Of course, Western governments and media have simply totally ignored any Russia appeal to the ideals of human rights and self-determination, which they consider their own private property as self-declared unique “democracies”. Russia is classed as an “autocracy” whose interests must be malevolent and thus don’t count.
A greater threat to the West’s self-proclaimed monopoly on virtue is coming from Israel’s merciless attack on the people of Gaza. Most of the Global South and growing sections of Western populations are horrified by Israel’s destruction of hospitals, mass murder of children and efforts to starve the Palestinians. They see Israel, with full Western backing, committing Genocide – the real thing this time, out in the open, blatant and unrelenting.
The NATO war machine may have to conjure up a new set of moralizing pretexts for its aggressions.
Notes
[1] See Fools’ Crusade: Yugoslavia, NATO and Western Delusions, Pluto Press, 2002, pp 9-10; Monthly Review 2003
[2] Here, with William Burns, Samantha Power discusses her new autobiography The Education of an Idealist and recalls her short term working for Abramowitz at the Carnegie Endowment. https://carnegieendowment.org/2019/09/13/samantha-power-on-education-of-idealist-event-7178
Why is Western Press Trying to Revive Havana Syndrome Hoax?
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 01.04.2024
US broadcaster CBS has claimed there is reason to believe that American officials struck by the so-called Havana Syndrome were “attacked” by Russia, despite five US intelligence agencies debunking the theory last year. What’s behind this new round of hysteria?
In what appears to be a bad April Fools joke, a group of Western mainstream media outlets, namely CBS’ 60 Minutes, The Insider, and Der Spiegel, has brought a busted “Havana Syndrome” theory that points the finger at Russia back to life, again.
The latest 60 Minutes show featured a retired army lieutenant colonel, an FBI agent, a Washington DC-based lawyer representing Havana Syndrome sufferers, and Bulgarian journalist Christo Grozev, well-known for his anti-Russian bias and accused by Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) in December 2022 of working hand in glove with the Ukrainian security agents on a plan to hijack several Russian warplanes. CBS’ interlocutors asserted to the broadcaster that “there are no barriers on what Moscow” could do.
What’s Havana Syndrome?
Havana Syndrome is a condition that was seemingly first reported in 2016 by employees of the US Embassy in Cuba who complained about vertigo, migraines, hearing and memory loss, and nausea. The symptoms described by the sufferers are often reported to follow pressure in their heads or strange sounds.
Later, some American government, military and intelligence officials and their family members cited similar symptoms at US embassies around the world, triggering speculation about the use of some sort of mysterious energy weapon. Cuba, Russia and China were named as potential culprits behind what the US mainstream media called a “hostile power attack”.
US Intelligence Agencies Debunked Claims of Russian Involvement
After conducting a thorough investigation into the matter under the Biden administration, the US intelligence community (IC) concluded that it was highly unlikely that the collection of debilitating symptoms was caused by unidentified foreign actors’ attacks.
The Washington Post reflected on the IC’s years-long probe, which included the review of approximately 1,000 cases of “anomalous health incidents”, on March 1, 2023.
“Five of [the US intelligence] agencies determined it was ‘very unlikely’ that a foreign adversary was responsible for the symptoms, either as the result of purposeful actions — such as a directed energy weapon — or as the byproduct of some other activity, including electronic surveillance that unintentionally could have made people sick,” the newspaper wrote.
The IC said it found no pattern or common set of conditions that could link the cases in question. It also did not find any proof, including forensic information or geolocation data, that would indicate that a potential adversary had used some sort of “directed energy such as radio waves or ultrasonic beams.”
One official interviewed by the WaPo stated that in locations where US intelligence had a complete ability to monitor the environment for signs of malicious interference, they had found no evidence of an adversary power targeting US government employees. On top of that, there was no intelligence confirming that foreign leaders, including from Russia, had any knowledge of or had authorized a hypothetical attack on US personnel.
The findings of the US intelligence community were met with ire by Havana Syndrome sufferers and their attorneys. This outrage could be partially explained by six-figure compensations promised by the Biden administration to those severely affected by the “syndrome.”
National Institutes of Health Nipped Mystical Sonic Weapons Theory in Bud
Independently of the IC investigation, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) confirmed its conclusions in two studies released on March 18, 2024. The NIH found no evidence of brain or inner ear injury in scans or blood markers of Havana Syndrome sufferers. The results were published in the reputable Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
According to the NIH, 41% of those who complained of the mysterious Havana Syndrome from nearly every geographic area either “met the criteria for Functional Neurological Disorders (FND)” or showed symptoms indicating underlying psychological distress. The reported health complaints were also usually closely related to a wide range of pre-existing conditions, anxiety reactions, or environmental factors.
Commenting on the NIH studies, Robert E. Bartholomew, an honorary senior lecturer in the Department of Psychological Medicine at the University of Auckland in New Zealand, lambasted peddlers of an “adversary power attack” theory in the scientific community and referred to flaws in their studies in his op-ed for Skeptic.
The scientist stressed that one shouldn’t underestimate the role of psychogenic disorders and distress US diplomats and spies are usually subjected to during their work overseas.
It’s hardly surprising that a mating call of the Indies short-tailed cricket was taken by some US Embassy employees in Cuba as the sound of a mysterious sonic weapon, according to him. Psychosis was quick to spread, instigated by fears of an adversary attack.
“Some media commentators and rogue scientists continue to speculate that a small number of cases in US personnel in both Cuba and later around the world, may have involved a directed energy weapon. Yet, Occam’s razor fits well here. Given two competing explanations, the simplest is the most likely,” Bartholomew wrote. “The entire episode is explainable using conventional psychology, and without recourse to foreign actors and secret weapons.”
Havana Syndrome Theory Used to Stoke Fears About US Rivals
What’s behind the Western media agitation with Havana Syndrome? According to Jacobin staff writer Branko Marcetic, one should pay attention to the timing of the fuss surrounding the energy weapon theory.
“The supposed foreign culprit behind the alleged attacks was constantly cycling through the rogues’ gallery of Washington’s villains of the week, from Cuba, initially, to Russia, then China. The most surprising thing is that Iran didn’t at any point end up in the rotation,” Marcetic noted.
Indeed, the theory of Havana Syndrome being caused by adversaries of the US gained traction at the time when the Trump administration cracked down hard on the Caribbean nation. Reports alleging Chinese traces were fuelled by the US’ trade wars against the People’s Republic and crusade against its hi-tech sector.
Naming Russia as a potential “culprit” fitted into the US foreign establishment’s agenda under both Trump and Biden so as to stoke fears about the alleged “Russian threat”.
The rhetoric of US adversaries being behind Havana Syndrome was just one in a string of other debunked outlandish claims, including fake news that Iran had sentenced fifteen thousand protesters to death; that Russia blew up the Nord Stream pipelines; that China had deliberately flown a spy balloon over the US, and many more, Marcetic emphasized.
According to the journalist, the hysteria was deliberately stirred up by the US to justify unfriendly and hostile acts against the aforementioned nations.
Timing of Havana Syndrome’s Revitalization Speaks Volumes
The timing of the US mainstream media’s effort to bring the Havana Syndrome theory back to life speaks volumes.
First, it comes amid a string of Ukraine’s defeats on the battlefield which appears to inflict serious reputational damage on Biden’s 2024 campaign ahead of the election. Second, it follows the Crocus City Hall terror attack, conducted by Islamists with the apparent participation of Ukrainian operators.
Most recently, Russian investigators have confirmed that the terrorists received cash and cryptocurrencies from Ukraine. What’s more, the Russian Investigative Committee’s report suggests that alleged Ukrainian masterminds could be directly connected to the CIA, MI6 and MI5, Kirill Kabanov, chairman of the National Anti-Corruption Committee, told Sputnik on March 30.
On Sunday, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in an official statement that it had conveyed to the Kiev regime its demand that those involved in terrorist attacks on Russian territory, including Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) head Vasyl Malyuk, be arrested and extradited to Moscow.
The Foreign Ministry’s demand was followed by a Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) statement on Monday saying that the Biden administration is “covering up those responsible for the terrorist attack at Crocus City Hall” and is “stepping up work to form a distorted picture of the large-scale terrorist attack that took place in Russia on March 22.”
Are the allegations once again being circulated by the Western press of powers adverse to Washington causing Havana Syndrome just a part of this strategy?
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.
Featured Video
U.S. Naval Blockade & Ground Invasion of Iran?
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Major rabbi says non-Jews are donkeys, created to serve Jews
By Khalid Amayreh, in occupied East Jerusalem | The People’s Voice | October 18, 2010
A major Jewish religious figure in Israel has likened non-Jews to donkeys and beasts of burden, saying the main reason for their very existence is to serve Jews.
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, spiritual mentor of the religious fundamentalist party, Shas, which represents Middle Eastern Jews, reportedly said during a Sabbath homily earlier this week that “the sole purpose of non-Jews is to serve Jews.”
Yosef is considered a major religious leader in Israel who enjoys the allegiance of hundreds of thousands of followers. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- Seyed M. Marandi: U.S. Naval Blockade & Ground Invasion of Iran?
- The Iran War Exposes the Emptiness of American ‘Strength’ in East Asia
- Europe’s Drone Pipeline to Ukraine Could Soon be in Russia’s Crosshairs – Analyst
- EU spied on Orban for years – former Slovak minister
- Fact-Checking the “Placebo Control” Fact Checkers
- An Open Letter To President Donald Trump (My Response) | Candace
- Arms industry given direct influence over university courses
- Another Trump Flip Flop: From ‘Kill FISA’ to ‘Clean Renewal’
- AIPAC ‘slimeball’ Eric Swalwell leaves the stage
- UAE to close its flagship Burj Al Arab hotel for 1.5 years after Iranian strikes
- If Americans Knew
- Mark Levin and Jonathan Pollard Push for Nuking Iran
- TCN: America Enables Israel’s Crimes
- Israel’s Next Leader Will Be Just Like Bibi – but Without the Corruption
- Born into war, raised across borders: The story of Gaza’s premature babies separated from their parents amid Israel’s genocide
- Israeli soldiers suspected of raping Palestinian detainee allowed to return to service
- Gaza flooded with sweets as fuel and medicine withheld, health official warns
- Israel, US ready for wars to resume, as Gaza healthcare is in freefall – Daily Update
- Commentary: take away Israel’s biggest weapon
- The Myth of Israel as ‘US Aircraft Carrier’ in Middle East
- Israeli Media: ‘Diseases Are Everywhere’: Gaza’s ‘Catastrophic’ Healthcare Crisis Is Worsening
- No Tricks Zone
- Abrupt Climate Change Also Occurred NATURALLY In The Past …25 Times During Last Ice Age
- Cave Discovery Reveals Today’s Desert Climates Were Recently Far Warmer, Wetter, Teeming With Life
- German Expert: Heat Dome Led To Record Temps In Western USA…Warmer In 1934, 1936
- New Study: No Linear Warming Or Glacier Retreat Along Northern Antarctic Peninsula Since 1980s
- An Inconvenient Tree: Uncovered In Alps… Europe Much Warmer Than Today 6000 Years Ago
- New Study Reports A 60% Slowdown In Greenland’s Ice Loss Rate In The Last Decade
- Low Intensity Tornado Wrecks Major Solar Farm, Creating A Potential Toxic Dump
- New Study Finds Warming Saves Lives…Cold Temperatures 12 Times More Deadly Than Excess Heat
- German Science Blog Accuses PIK Climate Institute Of Hallucinating Climate Tipping Points
- Devastating Assessment Of Comirnaty Vaccine By Former Senior Pfizer Europe Toxicologist
Aletho News 