Nonstop Media Bias From Russiagate to the Biden-Crime-Family Coverup
By Victor Davis Hanson | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 4, 2023
Joe Biden lied repeatedly when he claimed he knew nothing of his son Hunter’s influence-peddling businesses.
The president further prevaricated that he had no involvement in Hunter’s various shake down schemes.
Yet, the media continued to misinform by serially ignoring these facts.
Had journalists just been honest and independent, then-candidate Joe Biden might have lost a presidential debate and even the 2020 election.
The public would have learned that Hunter’s business associates and his laptop proved Joe was deeply involved in his son’s illicit businesses.
Later, as the evidence from IRS whistleblowers mounted, the White House stonewalled subpoenaed efforts and sought to craft an outrageous plea deal reduction in Hunter’s legal exposure.
Reporters ignored the Ukrainians who claimed Joe Biden himself talked to them about quid pro quo arrangements.
They again discounted Hunter’s laptop that explicitly demonstrated that Hunter was whining that he had handed over large percentages of his income to his father Joe — variously referred to as the Big Guy and a “ten percent” recipient on many deals.
They played dumb about Joe Biden’s use of pseudonyms and alias email accounts to hide thousands of his communications to Hunter and associates.
They attacked the former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin, who now claims Biden was likely bribed by Ukrainians.
Yet the media can no longer hide the reality that the president of the United States likely took bribes to influence or alter US policy to suit his payers.
Those two crimes — bribery and treason — are specifically delineated in the Constitution as impeachable offenses.
In denial, the media has instead pivoted with hysterical glee over various weaponized prosecutions of former President Donald Trump.
But now, to use a progressive catchphrase, the proverbial “walls are closing in” on Joe Biden.
So will we at last expect the media finally to confront the truth?
Answer — only if Joe Biden’s cognitive and physical health continues to deteriorate geometrically to the point that he can no longer finish his term or run for reelection — and thus becomes expendable.
Such a cynical view of the media is justified given their record of both incompetence and unapologetic deceit.
From 2015 to 2019, we were suffocated 24/7 with lies like “Russian collusion,” “Putin’s puppet,” “election rigging” and the “Steele dossier.”
When all such “evidence” was proven to be a complete fraud cooked up through Hillary Clinton’s stealthy hiring of and collusion with a discredited ex-British spy, a Russian fabulist at the Brookings Institution and a Clinton toady in Moscow, did the media apologize for their untruth?
Was there any media confessional that perhaps Robert Mueller and his leftwing legal team (the giddy media-dubbed “all-stars,” “dream team,” and “hunter killers”) proved a colossal waste of time?
Not at all.
Instead, the media went next right on to “the phone call” and “impeachment.”
The country then wasted another year.
The same biased reporters now claimed that the heroic Andrew Vindman had caught Trump fabricating lies about the Bidens — given Joe Biden was a possible 2020 opponent — to force Ukraine to investigate them or lose American foreign aid.
On that accusation Trump was impeached.
Then the truth emerged that unlike Joe Biden, Trump never threatened to cancel aid, but merely to delay it.
Trump was right that the Bidens were knee deep in Ukrainian bribes and influence peddling.
And that the whistleblower had no first-hand knowledge of the Trump call but was spoon fed a script cooked up by the gadfly Vindman and California Rep. Adam Schiff.
The result was journalistic glee that we impeached a president for crimes that he did not commit but exempted another president, Biden, who had likely committed them.
Then came the next hoax of the Russian fabricated facsimile of Hunter’s laptop.
The FBI later admitted it had verified the authenticity of Hunter’s laptop.
The 2020 Biden campaign along with an ex-CIA head rounded up “51 intelligence authorities” to mislead the country into believing that Russian gremlins in the Kremlin had fabricated a fake laptop.
Ponder that absurd fantasy: Moscow supposedly had created fake nude pictures, fake photos of Hunter’s drug use, and fake email and text messages from Hunter to the other Bidens.
The media preposterously convinced the country that the Russians and by extension Trump had once again sandbagged the Biden campaign.
No apologies followed when the FBI later admitted it had kept the laptop under wraps for more than a year, knew it was authentic, and yet said nothing as the media and former spooks misled the country and warped an election.
Now we are enmeshed in at least four court trials on cooked-up charges that could as easily apply to a host of Democrats as to Trump.
For the last eight years, a discredited media has never expressed remorse for any of the damage they did to the country. And they will not again, when their latest mythological indictments are eventually exposed.
Billionaire oligarch George Soros’ fund claims it bought Polish media outlet to stop ‘oligarchs’ from controlling media
BY JOHN CODY | REMIX NEWS | SEPTEMBER 5, 2023
George Soros’ fund recently bought a major stake in Polish media publisher Gremi Media, leaving Polish conservatives to criticize the move as national elections gear up in October. However, the fund justified its move in a statement by claiming it bought the media to stop “oligarchs” from buying up independent media.
The Soros Economic Development Fund explained in a statement its position regarding why it bought Gremi Media, which owns the major newspapers of Rzeczpospolita and Parkiet,
“Since 2005, independent media in Europe has been under increasing threat from the concentration of capital in the hands of politicians and politically committed oligarchs,” wrote the fund. “The financial crisis of the late 2000s and social media technology have disrupted traditional media models and made it easier for wealthy oligarchs and governments to buy up news companies. Many governments have changed their regulatory environment to exert greater control over information, and the use of public funds to finance media has led to a breakdown in media independence.”
Soros is one of the richest people in the world and widely considered to be a “politically committed oligarch” who has bought up media organizations across the West. For example, Soros’ fund just paid $400 million to purchase Vice Media after it went bankrupt. Soros has also played an active role in buying up Hispanic radio stations across the United States. Soros has already been active in Poland as well, including with Radio Zet, the country’s second-largest radio station in 2019.
Soros accrued billions from currency speculation and has been convicted for insider trading.
Pluralis, a company owned by billionaire oligarch George Soros, acquired a majority stake in Gremi Media, the publisher of Polish newspapers including Rzeczpospolita and Parkiet last week. This means that Pluralis will take control of Gremi Media, Boguslaw Chrabota, editor-in-chief of Rzeczpospolita, told Polish news agency PAP.
Pluralis now owns 931,000 shares in Gremi Media, representing 52 percent of the capital and 57 percent of the votes on the company’s board.
“This means that Pluralis will take control of Gremi Media and will have full decision-making powers in management and editorial matters. Given that he took over the company to expand it, not to liquidate or destroy it, I hope that all the value will be retained and that the company will continue to grow,” said Boguslaw Chrabota, who stated that Pluralis does not intend to interfere in media content and will only manage business interests.
Not everyone thinks Pluralis will abstain from interfering in the editorial process, however, and many are questioning the incredible media power Soros and his various funds and NGOs have. Latvian daily Neatkariga, for instance, wrote:
“The Polish media in the hands of the Soros family must adhere to the ideology that Soros has been cultivating, developing and spreading for decades, whether through money or other means. … Soros is one of the most controversial figures of our time. The political environment in every country where his money surfaces is confronted with aggressive, intolerant activity by the Soros media and NGOs.”
The paper notes that Soros has followed a different playbook in Latvia. There, he did not buy influential media but invested millions in shaping public opinion, creating and funding various NGOs, such as Delna and Providus.
Latvia’s Planned Expulsion of Russian Nationals ‘Grossly Contradicts’ UN, EU Norms
By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 29.08.2023
Russian human rights activists have condemned Latvia’s decision to expel about 6,000 Russian residents, who had lived in Latvia with a residence permit and did not pass the Latvian language exam. The process of expulsion will start as of September 1, 2023.
The members of the Commission for International Cooperation with the Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights under the Russian President have sent a letter to the United Nations (UN), the Council of Europe and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in connection with the “threat of forced eviction of Russian-speaking residents of Latvia.”
One of the Commission’s members is Kirill Vyshinsky, executive director of the Rossiya Segodnya International Information Agency, a parent company of the Sputnik News Agency.
The Commission’s message was delivered to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Turk, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights Dunja Mijatovic, and OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities Kairat Abdrakhmanov.
“We draw your attention to the gross violation of the rights of Russian-speaking residents of Latvia who have Russian citizenship and live on Latvian territory on the basis of a residence permit (RP) issued by the country’s authorities,” the letter reads.
The members of the Russian presidential human rights commission recalled that more than 6,000 such residents “are threatened with expulsion from Latvia as of September 1, 2023 due to last year’s changes in the country’s legislation and under the pretext that they did not pass the mandatory Latvian language exam.”
“They are mainly people of advanced retirement age who came to Latvia before the collapse of the Soviet Union. Their long-standing work added to creating the economic basis of Latvia and until the autumn of last year, Latvian legislation did not oblige them to take any language tests so that they can live with Russian citizenship in the country. Moreover, the very fact that these people lived in Latvia for many years proved that their knowledge of Latvian language was enough to organize their own daily life,” according to the letter.
The Russian rights activists stressed that “especially cynical in relation to these people is Latvian authorities’ requirement to not only pass the language exam, but also fill out questionnaires indicating their attitude to Russia’s foreign policy.”
“In fact, these people are required to not only take language tests, but also reveal their political views and give documented condemnation of Russia’s actions,” the letter points out.
“We believe that such actions by Latvian authorities grossly contradict the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the UN and the European Convention on Human Rights. We urge you to intervene in the situation and prevent the forced eviction of those who have Russian citizenship and residence permits issued by Latvian authorities,” the document concludes.
The letter comes after Ingmars Lidaka, head of Latvia’s Parliamentary Commission for Citizenship, Migration and Public Mobilization, said that between 5,000 and 6,000 Russian citizens, who have a residence permit and have not passed the Latvian language exam, will receive official notifications to leave the country “within three months.”
He added that the decision is in line with Latvia’s legislation and that its implementation will be enforced by the country’s Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs.
In September 2022, Latvia’s parliament passed a bill on the transition of all education to the Latvian language within three years, a document stipulating that the Russian can now only be studied as a “minority language”.
About 40 percent of Latvia’s 1.8 million population are Russian native speakers. The country’s state language is Latvian, while the Russian has the status of a foreign language.
Top UK Journalist Isabel Oakeshott Gloated Over The US’ Role In Imran Khan’s Deposal
BY ANDREW KORYBKO | AUGUST 27, 2023
The Mainstream Media’s (MSM) narrative about former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan’s scandalous deposal in April 2022 has hitherto been that it supposedly represented a completely independent and purely democratic exercise that was entirely free of foreign influence. These analyses here and here argue that it was actually a US-backed post-modern coup carried out as punishment for his multipolar foreign policy, which readers can learn more about by reviewing the preceding pieces.
The details are beyond the scope of the present piece, however, which focuses on how the MSM’s narrative has abruptly shifted in light of the provocative op-ed published by top UK journalist Isabel Oakeshott for the Telegraph. In her article titled “Imran Khan isn’t a martyr for freedom. He’s a friend of the West’s worst enemies”, she breaks ranks with her peers after being triggered by a recent video about IK’s plight in prison that includes footage of his meeting with President Putin in February 2022.
Here’s her initial reaction to that from the article:
“But hang on a minute! Who’s that lurking in the video? Do I spy an image of Khan gladhanding Vladimir Putin, even as the Russian president rained bombs on Ukraine? Of all the many pictures his spin doctors could have selected of their man on the world stage, they chose this one, as well as an image of their leader meeting Xi Jinping, the Chinese president. What a blunder – and what a disturbing insight into Khan’s new allegiances, now he has left his colourful playboy past behind.”
She then gloated over the US’ role in his deposal:
“A sensational report by The Intercept claims that a leaked Pakistani government document shows his deposal was actively encouraged by the US State Department. No wonder! As the West united to support Ukraine, what was he doing gravitating towards the Kremlin? While his supporters wring their hands over his plight, others may be relieved that this complex character no longer has his finger on a nuclear button.”
Oakeshott is entitled to her opinion, but it surprised many that a leading UK journalist would break the MSM’s narrative on this ultra-sensitive issue in an op-ed for one of the West’s leading outlets. It’s also curious that the Telegraph didn’t include the typical disclaimer that their contributors’ views don’t necessarily reflect their own. Considering this, the message being conveyed is that they – and elements of the Western elite by extrapolation – are proud of the US’ most successful regime change in years.
The silver lining is that anyone who tries to gaslight by claiming that it’s a so-called “conspiracy theory” to allege US involvement in IK’s deposal is now discredited since those who they’re attacking can simply point to how top UK journalist Oakeshott gloated over this in the Telegraph. Without realizing it, she just dealt a powerful blow to Western soft power by exposing the hypocrisy of its “rules-based order”, which in this context lends credence to many Pakistanis’ claims that their government is illegitimate.
Maui officials slammed over wildfire response
RT | August 17, 2023
Hawaiian authorities delayed the release of water to Maui residents trying to save their properties from last week’s devastating wildfires, local media revealed on Tuesday, citing four insider sources.
The Maui Department of Land and Natural Resources reportedly stalled as West Maui Land Co., which manages agricultural and residential developments on the western part of the island, requested additional water to stop the fast-moving blaze that would ultimately level the tourist town of Lahaina last Tuesday.
The agency’s deputy director for water management, M. Kaleo Manuel, allegedly wanted the company to get permission from a farm located downstream from its property. By the time Manuel finally released the water, it was too late and the fire had spread.
Maui’s Emergency Management Agency was also criticized for its response to the inferno. Agency director Herman Andaya defended the decision not to activate the island’s warning sirens, a signal network designed to work even without electricity, arguing the network was meant to be used to warn of tsunamis – not wildfires. Using it to alert residents to last week’s devastating blaze would have “sen[t] the wrong message to the public,” he said on Wednesday.
However, the island’s own website describes the sirens as an “all-hazard” system, with fires one of several natural and human-caused events the system – “the largest single integrated outdoor siren warning system for public safety in the world” – was designed for.
The decision to warn residents via cell phone alert instead likely proved fatal for many, as the electricity had been out for hours when the fires ignited and cellular reception was down in most of the area. As a result, many residents only realized they were in danger when they smelled smoke, and with roads blocked by downed power lines some had no escape route but to jump into the ocean.
The wildfire was the deadliest to strike the US in over a century, leaving at least 106 people dead with over 1,300 still missing as of Wednesday. The cause remains unknown, though some have pointed to Hawaiian Electric, whose power lines were seen sparking in the powerful winds that engulfed the island that day. The company has been criticized in the aftermath of the fire for focusing on “green energy” window-dressing to the exclusion of wildfire mitigation.
Hawaii Governor Josh Green announced on Monday that a “comprehensive review” into decisions made before and during the fire response would be conducted by the state attorney general.
Biden Regime Argues Texas and Florida Anti-Censorship Laws are a First Amendment Violation
The Biden regime suddenly cares about the First Amendment
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | August 15, 2023
Presented as an effort to safeguard speech rights, the Biden administration has called on the Supreme Court to dismantle controversial segments of the anti-censorship social media laws ratified in Florida and Texas.
We obtained a copy of the filing for you here.
(President Biden is also using the argument that banning his administration from asking platforms to remove speech is a First Amendment violation.)
The laws in question restrict the autonomy of leading social media platforms by preventing them from censoring citizens speech and discriminating on the basis of political viewpoint.
Both Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Texas Governor Greg Abbott staunchly support these laws as a means of protecting voices from being suppressed. Governor DeSantis, at the law signing in May 2021, criticized Big Tech’s bias for Silicon Valley ideology and emphasized the need for accountability.
The Texas law, featuring a provision prohibiting discrimination based on viewpoints, incorporates several exceptions, permitting platforms to ban content promoting violence, criminal behavior, child exploitation, and harassment of sexual-abuse survivors and more. The law presses social media platforms to adopt user complaint procedures, disclose content and data management practices, and publish a comprehensive biannual transparency report.
The legislation only applies to platforms attracting over 50 million monthly users.
The Florida law has a similar scope and, in addition, mandates a detailed justification for each content moderation. The legislation also forbids the banning of political contenders or “journalistic enterprises.”
US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar perceives this as an encroachment on First Amendment rights. She contended in a recent court filing that such laws infringe the liberty of tech giants in selecting, editing, and arranging user-generated content. Essentially, she claimed these actions are all protected under the First Amendment.
Endorsing two industry trade groups that have formally contested the laws, she implored the Supreme Court to scrutinize both measures.
Federal appeals courts, however, are divided over the issue. The 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has primarily blocked Florida’s legislation, deeming it potentially unconstitutional. Conversely, the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit backed the Texas law but held it back to permit an appeal to reach the Supreme Court.
Certainly, both states, as well as the trade groups, are petitioning the Supreme Court to adjudicate on a range of issues concerning the two cases. An announcement of the court’s decision is expected as early as September.
While Prelogar largely aligns with the social media companies, she refrained from endorsing their protest against the “general-disclosure provisions” that require the publishing of content-management policies and production of transparency reports. These issues, she argued, are not the main subject of the lawsuits and high court review would be premature.
Sweden’s “Psychological Defense Agency” is Using Cold War Strategies to Combat “Disinformation”
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | August 14, 2023
Sweden is blaming Russia for the backlash it faces in the Islamic world because of incidents, such as the burning of copies of Quran, that have occurred in that country.
Apparently, Muslims around the world, and in Sweden, would not be outraged by this if there weren’t for Russia’s alleged campaign on social media to spread this information. That is defined as “amplifying global reaction.”
At least, that is being cited as the reason – or an excuse that few will dare criticize – for yet another government devising and putting in motion plans to “combat misinformation.”
Sweden seems very eager to join that club, even if it doesn’t look like it’s brimming with innovative ideas: namely, the Scandinavian country is going all the way back to the Cold War playbook.
With the stage set like this, enter the Ministry of Defense’s Psychological Defense Agency, set up last year, but according to reports, modeled after Sweden’s Cold War-era “solutions” in case of a hot war.
Just like elsewhere around the world when (mis)information is “fought” by introducing new agencies and increasing government intervention in the realm of free speech, that often ends up in censorship – and often looks like it was actually designed to promote censorship – the justification is that such fundamental things like national security and democracy are under fire from “misinformation.”
The Psychological Defense Agency, which currently numbers 55 employees, is explained as a necessity for a country which believes it is currently facing the most serious security “situation” since WW2. At least that’s according to Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson.
Whether or not Kristersson exaggerates the situation, thus creating a “misinformation campaign” of his own aside, the Defense Ministry outfit’s existence has produced some protestations.
Speaking of threats to democracy – Hanna Linderstal of Earhart Business Protection Agency noted that, “The government can’t control the truth if it’s going to be a democracy.”
Meanwhile Magnus Hjort, who heads the Psychological Defense Agency, and others under his “command” have not publicly presented what evidence they have of Russia being behind harmful to Sweden information “amplification.”
But he did reveal the agency is “regularly in touch” with social media companies – denying, however, that they have demanded that accounts or content be taken down.
German media and political establishment ponder whether to ban the political preferences of 1/5 of the population
eugyppius: a plague chronicle | August 14, 2023
Since 19 June, polls have consistently placed support for the right-populist party Alternative für Deutschland at 20% or higher, making them the second most popular party in Germany – slightly ahead of government-leading SPD, and behind the CDU/CSU. Last week, Thomas Haldenwang, the head of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV), gave a state media interview in which he accused the party yet again of harbouring “a significant number of people … who repeatedly spread hatred and agitation against minorities.” Despite serious questions about whether Haldenwang’s repeated slander is even legal, spokesmen for all the major parties immediately declared themselves in agreement with the assessment.
It’s very important to note that Haldenwang is himself a member of the CDU. The Christian Democrats ought to be the big winners in the opposition, as Olaf Scholz’s coalition government stumbles from one crisis to the next. Yet they’re doing no better than they were in mid-2021. Angela Merkel has done the party no favours, implicating the Christian Democrats in the catastrophic pandemic response, as well as the ongoing mass migration crisis and even the ascendancy of the Green climate programme. They’ve failed to offer any real alternative to the present government, and the AfD is reaping the gains instead.
A day after Haldenwang’s renewed warnings, the German president Frank-Walter Steinmeier published an editorial in Der Spiegel, in which he condemned the AfD as directly as the dictates of etiquette permit, at one point even calling for “militant” resistance against the party:
Our constitution can tolerate the hardest and toughest disputes. It cannot, however, integrate enemies of the constitution – and we must not ignore the danger they pose. Political antagonism is one thing, constitutional hostility something else entirely.
So what is to be done? In the fight against extremism, there is a historical lesson that runs like a red thread through the earliest draft constitution set down at Herrenchiemsee – and which still applies today: A democracy must be fortified against its enemies. Never again should democratic rights of freedom be abused in order to abolish freedom and democracy. To be robust and defensible daily political life means first of all to demonstrate an openness to political debate and not to accept the trumped-up lies propagated by the enemies of freedom, whether with silence or appeasement, and thereby to encourage them. The democratic parties are required to demonstrate clear, resolute, even militant opposition …
That militant opposition is already here. On Friday night, the Augsburg AfD politician Andreas Jurca was beaten unconscious by immigrants in a targeted political attack, which left him with severe facial bruising and a broken ankle.
Hessen Antifa have also published the personal addresses of all AfD candidates for the state parliamentary elections in October. I doubt it is very easy to come by such information without help from the government.
Yesterday, SPD head Saskia Esken declared herself in favour of banning AfD, should the constitutional protectors declare the party guilty of “confirmed right-wing extremism,” something which is almost certain to happen sooner or later: “The fight against the AfD is a fight that the whole of society, all democrats, must wage together.”
There’s considerable doubt about whether a ban is feasible. Oliver Maksan, writing from the Berlin bureau of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, points out that the party falls far short of meeting the criteria, even accepting for the sake of argument all the establishment characterisations about its “anti-democratic” tendencies:
The Federal Government, Bundesrat or Bundestag would have to convince the Federal Constitutional Court that the whole party, not just individual members, has included anti-constitutional goals in its programme and pursues them in a planned, militant and effective manner. …
Even the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution … does not see the AfD as a unified bloc. Its 2022 annual report still reads that “In view of the continuing heterogeneity of content within the party … not all party members can be regarded as supporters of extremist tendencies.”
Moreover, it is not enough to point to the widespread rejection of the EU, sympathies towards Russia or NATO scepticism within the party. One may think such attitudes are wrong, but they are not forbidden. What would have to be proven are genuine attempts to eliminate the free democratic basic order, specifically the principles of democracy, human dignity and the rule of law, in whole or in part.
I might share Maksan’s optimism if Covid hadn’t happened. Clearly the German state will do whatever it wants and worry about how to justify it after the fact. Maksan is more convincing in his argument that the process of a formal ban would involve protracted procedures, and contribute enormously to AfD support in the meantime. It is a risk that the BfV seems to be on the verge of accepting:
“The political centre is currently melting like ice in the sun,” a high-ranking East German BfV recently told WELT on background. In the East, he said, there are now districts where it is not merely 20 to 30 percent voting for the AfD, but as many as 40 or 50 percent.
The major parties could at any moment deprive the AfD of considerable support simply by moderating their political programme. What is most ominous about these developments is the general refusal even to consider this path. As I said in another context, democracy has become for our rulers not a political system, but a series of desired outcomes. Formally democratic processes which threaten these outcomes are now considered anti-democratic and beyond consideration. It is not the AfD or their supporters who have been radicalised; many AfD statements denounced by the media as extreme and fascistic were in fact political commonplaces two decades ago. It is rather the political establishment that has grown extreme and lost touch with vast sectors of the electorate. I fear this is a unidirectional, self-reinforcing process, and that our rulers will never find their way back.
Imran Khan and the ‘successful’ outcome of US ‘interference’ in Pakistan: Fascism under a totalitarian military dictatorship
By Junaid S. Ahmad | Global Research | August 14, 2023
So, my friends and comrades in virtually the entire Pakistani Left spent more than a year mocking at least 80 percent of the country’s population for believing former Prime Minister Imran Khan about American ‘interference’ (to put it mildly) in Pakistan’s internal politics, and more specifically about removing him from office.
My comrades’ contributions to political life since Khan was ousted from power in April of 2022 have been a fanatical obsession with the man, an understandable deeply emotional envy of the tens of millions of people he was mobilizing, and a crazed fixation to convince the ‘Western Left’ that Khan isn’t really that popular (Democracy Now) and is no ‘anti-imperialist hero’ (Jacobin) – who cares about engaging other outsiders like suffering Kashmiris or Palestinians under occupation for whom Khan took a strong stand (apparently the ‘Western Left’ is just much more important). I guess my comrades thought that these were the most productive strategies to ‘liberate’ the Pakistani ‘working class.’
Ultimately, the Left with which I’ve always identified has facilitated not merely the return of the ‘ancien regime’ of kleptocratic politicians and an all-powerful military establishment, but the most fascist face of these two forces that the country has ever witnessed. We are now in a ruthless military dictatorship which is wholeheartedly supported by the two dynastic political parties akin to more like personal feudal fiefdoms which have taken turns in plundering and impoverishing the country since the late 1980s/early 1990s.
The new fascist regime has decimated the, by far and away, largest and most popular political party in the country, disappeared, arrested, illegally detained, tortured, sexually abused, and killed tens of thousands of not primarily men, but women, children, and the elderly – anyone that even remotely had any association with Khan’s political party, which included mothers, grand-mothers, children, neighbors, friends, etc. All of this was done in a deliberate and calculated way, and even though Democracy Now informed us that Khan’s views on women are identical to the Taliban, the majority of supporters of Khan are women, not men.
Pakistani journalists have been hunted down and killed as far away as in Kenya, forget about their mass disappearances, torture, and killing within Pakistan itself. And the final act being, since they failed in their assassination attempts, to throw Khan in a remote, wretched jail cell in which he can barely fit – to thoroughly and barbarically humiliate him.
The point was to strike so much terror in the population, and to show us that if this can be done to Imran Khan, then anyone and everyone is fair game to be disappeared, tortured, or killed.
Where has our Left been during all of this? Why were my comrades not confronting the ‘establishment’ we’ve always railed against? You had the most direct and persistent people’s confrontation with the sadistic military elite in the nation’s history (joined by many soldiers and junior and mid-rank officers, many former students of mine), and there was an astonishing absence of any of our Left in this struggle of many months.
This has and has not been about Khan. This is about Khan because he helped to politicize a society, the level of mass politicization not seen since the late 1960s/early 1970s. The popular reaction to his ouster from power, unlike any previous ouster of the country’s prime ministers (all of which elicited absolute indifference from the population precisely because civilian rule was not different for them from military rule – both were equally corrupt and repressive), literally shocked everyone (including Khan himself): tens of millions of people mobilizing and demonstrating in every corner of the country of 240 million.
And it is not about Khan because, since April 2022, each month you could see a population (the vast majority demonstrating were not card-carrying members of Khan’s party and had myriad criticisms of his term in power) becoming even more radically opposed to the cruelties and injustices of the social and political order – a situation which the Left could have completely taken advantage of to sharpen popular analysis and help organize and mobilize more effectively. There has been no moment more opportune for the country’s Left to help radically undermine the political status quo that has been the norm virtually since the nation’s birth in 1947, and have popular engagement – to make the case for more progressive values – as they struggle in solidarity with the bulk of the country’s population.
But that was not to be since, from the beginning, the Left dismissed Khan as the ‘military’s puppet’ simply because he and the military high command, at ONE particular moment in 2018, agreed on ONE single issue: ending the US occupation of Afghanistan. It was an absurd analysis of the most popular political and public personality – by far – in the country. And it was a convenient way to not only do nothing, but ridicule and mock (especially the youth and students) who were involved in these mobilizations.
Finally, the silence of Western governments and Western media on this barbaric period of military brutality in the fifth largest country in the world, nuclear-armed, contrasted with the obsession with a bloodless coup in Niger which seems either welcomed or just shown indifference by the majority of that country’s population, tells you everything how the Deepest State made sure its vassal Deep State resolve the ‘Khan problem’ once and for all.
Friends, imperialism and its domestic enforcers/torturers have taken my country to a period of darkness that I have never witnessed.
(The government in Pakistan has now blocked access to The Intercept for this exposé. This 20 minute video (see below) by the Intercept’s co-author Ryan Grim is an attempt at a workaround.)
Prof. Junaid S. Ahmad teaches Religion and Global Politics, and is the Director of the Center for the Study of Islam and Decoloniality, Islamabad, Pakistan.
US response to Russia-China naval patrol exposes glaring hypocrisy
By Timur Fomenko | RT | August 8, 2023
Last week, the US sent a group of warships and a reconnaissance plane to waters off the coast of Alaska after Chinese and Russian vessels conducted a joint naval patrol in the area.
A former US Navy captain and analyst for right-wing think tank the Heritage Foundation described the patrol as “highly provocative.” Because the US and its allies would never, ever do something like that, right?
The US is engaged in the full-blown militarisation of the peripheries of both China and Russia in a manner that implies it has an unconditional right to do so. This behaviour has not only provoked one war, in Ukraine, but risks triggering a second one, over the Taiwan Strait, too. The reality, of course, is that neither Russia nor China poses any threat to Alaska whatsoever, because the conflict, or risk thereof, is at their own front doors, not America’s.
The US is the most militaristic and aggressive country in modern history. It has established a global military presence that spans every single continent with hundreds of military bases. In doing so, it claims it supports the freedom and self-determination of others. In reality, it provocatively encircles states that it deems rivals to its own global dominance, escalates tensions, and then when these states respond to the situation, subsequently brands them as the “aggressors,” thus affirming and even expanding its military footprint in these given regions.
With Russia, the US has pursued a relentless expansion of NATO eastwards since the Cold War, absorbing former members of the Soviet Union’s alliance system even when Russia had no will to compete with it. NATO has evolved from a unit of collective self-defence in a specific geographic region into an increasingly global ideological crusade which serves the goals of the US. The words “North Atlantic” in its name are increasingly redundant as Washington even endeavours to broaden its reach to Asia and the Pacific.
Which leads to the next point, China. The US is pushing for a full-scale military and naval encirclement around China’s eastern periphery, deliberately using the Taiwan independence issue as a wedge to ramp up tensions despite the One China Policy and giving the island region more and more arms. While doing this, it is forcing more and more countries to accept a greater American military presence. This recently included the Philippines, where the US gained access to a number of bases, as well as Papua New Guinea, where a defence cooperation agreement was recently signed. At the same time, the US constantly sails warships through the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, citing so-called “freedom of navigation” from a law which it does not even ratify. China’s retaliatory actions are then branded “aggressive” and threatening the peace of the region.
If this constitutes normal behaviour and a sovereign right of the US, why can China and Russia not sail patrols up to Alaskan waters? Why is one behaviour described as “freedom of navigation” but the other is labelled “highly provocative”? The reality is that because both countries are concerned about the US on their doorsteps, they have little interest in ever waging war as far afield in Alaska. The same cannot be said about US actions on their doorsteps, whereby the threat of war is very, very real and is being cranked up even higher by Washington. The US deems it has rights which other countries do not, which leads to the double standards voiced in the media regarding these seemingly equal actions.
China-Russia military cooperation is a product of the US antagonising them both, rather than so-called “provocative behaviour.” In the geographic sphere of Northeast Asia, the two countries have shared strategic interests which concern checking the expansion of US military power in Japan and the Korean Peninsula. This extends to the Northern Pacific. Neither country has any specific ambitions regarding Alaska. Neither China nor Russia is attempting to foster an independence or separatist movement there, unlike what the US is doing with Taiwan, and then groom it into a military partner hostile to Washington. Therein lies the difference between the two sets of military behaviour. China and Russia may cooperate for common strategic objectives, but they are not exerting aggression in the process. On the other hand, the US’ military presence and patrols are designed to upend a region and turn countries against other, provoke strife, and of course advance its economic goals. The irony is that media discourse presents this as entirely normal and justified, but then depicts Russia-China cooperation as a potential threat to Alaska.
Featured Video
Iran spent $1 million to wipe out $30 billion in data center plans, and take down Amazon in the ME
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Clash of Civilization, Iran Part II
By Jamal Kanj – Intifada-Palestine.com – January 14, 2011
Israel’s survival kit is: perpetuate conflict, insecurity to rationalize collective hate and finally playing victim.
Devoid of conflict, Israel implodes internally; without hate, Zionism loses its justification; and playing eternal victim to continue blackmailing the West. Absence of this holy trinity, Israel ceases to exist. … continue
Blog Roll
Aletho News- China Rejects Outside Pressure on Trade Ties After New US Russia Sanctions Bill
- Houthis Keep Advancing as the Red Sea Crisis Deepens
- Iran spent $1 million to wipe out $30 billion in data center plans, and take down Amazon in the ME
- Zionist billionaire pressure to silence Macklemore sparks exodus from Ed Sheeran tour
- House Votes to End Iran War for Third Time
- North Korea Slams US Plan for ‘AUKUS 2.0’ with South Korea and Japan
- Prolonging US-Iran Conflict Not Meeting Interests of Int’l Community – China’s Wang Yi
- EU bans former Zelensky aide from parliament
- NATO-backed Kosovo separatist ‘responsible for war crimes’
- US destroying international space law
- If Americans Knew
- As Gaza crumbles, Israel preps new ground invasion – Daily Update
- ‘We are not like everyone else’ laws that bind other nations do not apply to Israel, says Likud lawmaker
- Trump’s govt makes ‘treasonous’ claim of weapons shortages
- Palestinian-American Journalist Naqaa Hamed Imprisoned by Israeli Forces After Settlers Targeted Her
- U.S. Makes, Israel Takes: The Real Story of U.S.-Israeli Military Cooperation
- Night raids rise in Palestine
- Tucker Carlson interviews Norman Finkelstein about Gaza
- Groups urge Americans to support Van Hollen legislation on Israel’s killing of Americans & Palestinians
- Trump administration plans to send 40,000 tons of bombs to Israel: report
- Sanctions Target Iran’s Government, But Kill Hospitalized 23-Year-Old Woman
- No Tricks Zone
- New Study: ‘Global Drought Shows No Detectable Recent Acceleration Under Climate Warming’
- Economic Masterminds: German Socialists Suggest Taxing Productivity Gains Stemming From Using AI
- The South China Sea Has Not Been Cooperating With The Climate Change Narrative
- Energy Crisis: Germany Enters Heating Season With Historically Low Gas Reserve Fill Levels
- New Study: The Antarctic Ice Sheet Gained Mass From 2020-2024 Due To Staggering Snow And Ice Accumulation
- Study: Ocean Heating Rates From Thousands Of Years Ago ‘Dwarf’ Modern Ocean Heating Rates
- Climate Extremists Target, Attack Large-Scale Power Grid Infrastructure In Germany!
- New Study: Antarctic Ice Melt Has Contributed Less Than 1 Centimeter To Sea Level Rise In The Last 30 Years
- Fear Of Debate: Alarmist German Climate Scientist Calls On Mainstream Media To Discredit Skeptic Voices
- End-Of-August Arctic Sea Ice Extent Hasn’t Fallen In 20 Years, Official Data Show!
Aletho News 