Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Claims of Silicon Valley bias are ‘disinformation’, say researchers citing disgraced partisan ‘experts’ and Big Tech itself

By Nebojsa Malic | RT | February 2, 2021

Silicon Valley wants you to know that even thinking they might be biased against conservatives is ‘disinformation,’ and cite a paper informed by censorious busybodies, partisan hacks and their own executives to prove it.

Twitter spokesman Nick Pacilio approvingly quoted the Washington Post story about a report arguing that the “claim of anti-conservative animus on the part of social media companies is itself a form of disinformation: a falsehood with no reliable evidence to support it.”

Nothing to see here, folks, just a former press secretary for Democrat Kamala Harris (it’s in his bio) retweeting a newspaper that openly endorsed the Biden-Harris ticket saying that Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong, right?

Before the “fact checkers” declare that actually, Pacilio was a spokesman for Harris in 2011-2014, when she was California’s attorney general – the point is that he doesn’t bother hiding his political allegiance, and neither does the Post. But it would be wrong to judge a report solely by the people who endorse it, so let’s take a look at it, shall we?

Authored by Paul M. Barrett, deputy director of Stern Center for Business and Human Rights at New York University (NYU) and research fellow J. Grant Sims, the 28-page paper is a regurgitation of talking points by mainstream media, “disinformation researchers” advocating for censorship under the guise of ‘Russiagate,’ and Big Tech companies themselves. Looking at their 74 endnotes, one finds multiple mentions of mainstream media outlets, but also citations of the Democrat propaganda shop Media Matters, the German Marshall Fund, and even the Biden-Harris campaign.

Any study of social media censorship that doesn’t address the New York Post getting locked out by Twitter and suppressed by Facebook over the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop in the run-up to the 2020 election is a farce. This report mentions it exactly once – in a “conservatives pounce” way, no less.

Describing the NY Post story as “questionable” and “apparently based on stolen emails,” the researchers claim it was a case of “reasonable decisions wrapped in mystifying processes.” Their conclusion mirrors the (footnoted) Washington Post editorial, literally headlined “Twitter and Facebook were right to suppress a Biden smear. But they should tell us why they did.” No bias here, everyone!

In other words, they literally want increased censorship on social media platforms, justified by the conservatives supposedly “falsely” claiming they’re being censored.

To no one’s surprise, the researchers conclude that platforms need a “content overseer” executive who would report directly to the top, and “do a better job of protecting users and society at large from harmful content.” They also want the Biden administration to either set up a new agency for digital oversight or give more power to existing ones, and reform Section 230 – the legal shield protecting platforms from lawsuits over content – to make it conditional on their censorship, or as they put it, “acceptance of a range of new responsibilities related to policing content.”

Now comes the best part. Among the people the authors thanked for their “time and insight” are representatives of Google, Twitter, and Facebook; two people from NewsGuard, a few Big Tech apologists from the neoliberal and neoconservative circles, a former Obama White House tech policy advisor – identified here by his new gig at Harvard Kennedy School – and Renée DiResta of the Stanford Internet Observatory. 

DiResta has made herself quite a career at Stanford, producing alarmist reports of what Russia “might” do to harm American democracy or something, but she started out as research director at a shop called New Knowledge. This group of “tech specialists who lean Democratic,” to use a New York Times understatement, was literally caught running a false flag “Russian bot” operation on Twitter in 2017, during the US Senate special election in Alabama, in order to elect a Democrat.

Her inclusion is just the cherry on top of the giant hypocrisy cake that is the Barrett-Sims paper. It’s worse than merely factually wrong: it’s an exercise in gaslighting, projection and breath-taking dishonesty, it relies on self-serving and dishonest sources, and literally advocates for censorship. Whatever it takes to protect Our Democracy from “disinformation,” I guess.

Once the story of that broke – in December 2018, too late to change anything – New Knowledge quietly rebranded as Yonder, and that was it. No accountability. Instead of being disqualified as partisan hacks, the Senate Intelligence Committee doubled down on “insights” from New Knowledge/Yonder to insist there was “Russian meddling” in the 2016 election. DiResta simply moved to Stanford and kept doing the same thing.

Nebojsa Malic is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Telegram @TheNebulator and on Twitter @NebojsaMalic

February 2, 2021 Posted by | Fake News, Full Spectrum Dominance, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

New York Times Calls For Biden to Appoint “Reality Czar” to Fight “Disinformation”

RT | February 2, 2021

Striving to silence voices with which the mainstream media disagrees, the New York Times has urged President Joe Biden to appoint a “reality czar” to lead the fight against “disinformation and domestic extremism.”

And yes, George Orwell fans, America’s supposed newspaper of record used the phrase “reality czar” in describing the task-force leader that several “experts” recommended would be needed to take charge of the cross-agency “strategic response” to those odious people who say things deemed false by the government. This would be equivalent to the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s ‘1984’, and the New York Times’  ‘experts’ see the secretary of truth, or reality czar, turning loose the tools of Big Brother to crack down on those conspiracy theorists who have created “the reality crisis.”

Of course, Roose’s experts also said Biden’s administration would need to be given peeks into those “black-box algorithms” at Twitter, Facebook, etc. to “open the hood on social media” and properly investigate reality offenders.

“It sounds a little dystopian, I’ll grant,” Times technology columnist Kevin Roose conceded on Tuesday, “but let’s hear them out.” He went on to say that the “tip-of-the-spear” task force could hold regular meetings with social media platforms and demand “structural changes,” such as violating the privacy of their customers under special government exemptions.

The targets of such scrutiny would, of course, include purveyors of the QAnon conspiracy theory. Roose’s other examples of “collective delusions” included the “baseless theory” that Covid-19 was manufactured in a Chinese lab.

In lieu of having a reality czar installed already, it’s not clear where the Times got the official ruling that the Chinese lab theory is baseless. Just last month, the US State Department said it had new information suggesting that the pandemic could have emerged from a lab in Wuhan, China, where evidence claimed to show researchers became sick with coronavirus-like symptoms in the fall of 2019, months before the first identified case of Covid-19 was reported in Wuhan. China has vehemently refuted such allegations, reminding that it was the first country to identify and report its cases to the world in what they say was likely one of multiple simultaneous outbreaks of the new disease.

The call for a reality czar comes amid assertions by media outlets and Democrat politicians that the US has a domestic terrorism crisis, rooted largely in white supremacy and unhinged support for former President Donald Trump. CNN has campaigned for its largest competitor, Fox News, to be forced off the air for reporting falsehoods.

Some observers suggested that the reality task force should start by responding to the falsehoods reported by the mainstream media, including false allegations that Trump’s campaign colluded with the Russian government to steal the 2016 presidential election.

Free-speech advocates said the Times’ call for a reality czar was predictable. “Ah, the Ministry of Truth,” UK journalist Raheem Kassam said. “I’ve been waiting for this one.”

“People who spent four years ranting about Russians taking over the government and now ranting about a coup want to appoint themselves to explain reality to the rest of us,” one Twitter user said.

See also:

NYT editor apparently deactivates Twitter account after being ridiculed for tweeting ‘I HAVE CHILLS’ when Biden plane landed

February 2, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Progressive Hypocrite | , | Leave a comment

Syria: A new policy is needed, but not this one

Former UK Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford on the US “responsible statecraft” under Biden:

Just World Educational | January 28, 2021

Jeffrey Feltman and Hrair Balian recently argued in a piece on Responsible Statecraft for a new U.S. policy on Syria that would ostensibly be more humane and productive since it would calibrate Syria sanctions relief to changes in President Bashar al-Assad’s behaviour. This approach may appear to be an improvement on present sanctions policy, which is clearly not working and is causing immense civilian suffering throughout the country. But it could end up making things worse.

We must be grateful to previous Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s point-man on Syria, Ambassador Jim Jeffrey, for having been brutally candid about the real goals of sanctions on Syria under the previous administration. In an early-December interview with Al-Monitor Jeffrey bragged openly about the hardships the sanctions had inflicted:

… And of course, we’ve ratcheted up the isolation and sanctions pressure on Assad, we’ve held the line on no reconstruction assistance, and the country’s desperate for it. You see what’s happened to the Syrian pound, you see what’s happened to the entire economy. So, it’s been a very effective strategy…

It’s important to grasp the moral enormity of this. Jeffrey did not stoop to deploying the standard cant about theoretical ‘humanitarian exemptions’ (which don’t work in practice) or about aiming only at Assad’s capacity to do harm. No, for him, the purpose of sanctions was and is to strangle the Syrian economy and if that should mean causing ordinary Syrians to queue for bread or gasoline for hours, or be unable to revive factories and recover jobs, or rebuild and re-equip hospitals, or import vitally needed medical goods… well that’s just collateral damage and it’s all for the greater good of pursuing U.S. interests.

What Feltman and Balian are proposing is to ease off on some of this strangulation in return for political concessions. There is a term for this: it’s called extortion. It’s the technique of New Jersey hoodlums rather than a Delaware ‘ordinary Joe’.

Let’s take a closer look at what Feltman and Balian are calling for. First, they argue,

… the United States should consider exempting from sanctions all humanitarian efforts to combat COVID-19 in Syria. Equally urgent would be facilitating the reconstruction of essential civilian infrastructure, such as hospitals, schools, and irrigation facilities. Next would follow a phased and reversible easing of U.S. and European sanctions.

They stress, however, that this “phased and reversible” easing of sanctions “would be triggered only when the United States and its European allies verify the implementation of concrete steps negotiated with the Syrian government. Monitoring mechanisms would ascertain progress.” Such “monitoring” would doubtless be intrusive and under U.S. control…

And what are these steps? Here’s how Feltman and Balian lay them out—with my own comments in italics:

  • the release of political prisoners [the US-favoured ‘moderates’ no doubt, now known to be in many cases Islamist fanatics ],
  • dignified reception for returning refugees [meaning no checks for returning jihadis ],
  • civilian protection [what lurks behind this elastic concept? ],
  • unhindered, countrywide humanitarian access [i.e. supplying jihadi-controlled Idlib ],
  • the removal of remaining chemical weapons [here we go again! Iraq WMD redux, a tailor-made excuse to withhold sanctions relief ], and
  • political as well as security sector reforms [i.e., pave the way for regime change ], including good-faith participation in the U.N.’s Geneva process and greater decentralization [partition ].

No government with any awareness of what happened to other countries that bowed to intrusive verification regimes (Iraq) or signed unrequited sanctions-easing agreements (Libya, Iran) could possibly make such a surrender of sovereignty, which is tantamount to capitulation. Anyone putting such a plan forward ought to know that it could not possibly be accepted even as a basis for negotiation. On the other hand it would serve neatly to deflect from the U.S. (and EU) responsibility for the suffering their sanctions inflict on the Syrian people by making it possible to say “Assad won’t negotiate to save his people.”

We can imagine Assad-haters drooling in anticipation of endless opportunities to yank his leash if he puts his head in any collar such as this. And if he doesn’t, well it’s not our fault, then, is it? We can go on as now, only now folks queasy about the hardship we are causing can rest easy in their consciences.

To appreciate the sheer chutzpah of this approach let’s imagine Assad had the temerity to demand reciprocation. How about monitoring for the withdrawal of US troops stationed in violation of international law in Eastern Syria? How about compensation for desperately needed oil illegally lifted from the areas of Eastern Syria under US control? How about cessation of intelligence cooperation with Israel (boasted about by Pompeo) to facilitate wide-scale, unprovoked Israeli bombing of Syria? How about cessation of support for the ‘autonomous authority’ which administers territory in Northern Syria on behalf of jihadi groups masquerading as moderates? Etc, etc.

Let us imagine that the Assad-haters’ dreams came true and Assad was successfully starved into making the required concessions? Who can honestly doubt that throwing open the prisons and permitting unfettered return of Islamists would lead to instability which would make post-Saddam Iraq look like a model of order? Or that replenished and revived jihadi fighters in Idlib would break out of their enclave, overrunning neighbouring Christian and Alawite areas with results too horrifying to imagine? Or that in these conditions ISIS would revive? Or that “decentralisation’”would lead to the breakup of Syria long desired by some?

It might be objected that “we have to try something” or “why not give this a shot at least?” The answer to that is that any person with the slightest understanding of the thinking in Damascus knows that the approach stands absolutely no chance of getting past first base. So it is just not going to work, at least in terms of its declared objectives. It won’t produce changes in behaviour and it won’t lead to sanctions alleviation. But just by being put on the table it will make it optically easier for the regime change advocates to carry on with the callous and cynical Jeffrey approach.

Offering a new form of a poisoned chalice is not a new policy but a way to entrench the old one.

January 30, 2021 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Wars for Israel | , , , | Leave a comment

Our democracy is under threat… by too much democracy, say lawmakers demanding removal of ‘conspiracy theorist’ rep

By Helen Buyniski | RT | January 29, 2021

Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has triggered a meltdown among her Democrat peers, who believe her embrace of ‘conspiracy theories’ is grounds for ejecting her from Congress. But it’s not up to them.

While Democrats and the media establishment have been disparaging Greene since before she won her primary, mocking her as the “QAnon candidate” and insisting she’s dangerous for spreading “misinformation,” California Democratic rep Jimmy Gomez has gone one step further, demanding she be removed from office altogether – a rare measure that has been used fewer than two dozen times in US history.

Gomez announced on Wednesday he would introduce a resolution to expel Greene from Congress, a move that has been gaining support from her Democratic peers in the House even though it is wildly undemocratic and effectively suggests voters should have no say in choosing their government. Given that the party has been harping on “our democracy” for months in a (successful) bid to defeat former president Donald Trump, the hypocrisy on display is truly massive.

It’s not like high-ranking Democrats haven’t had a lot of encouragement for their conclusions that Greene has got to go. Everyone from establishment journalists to gun control advocates, to centrist Republicans have been demanding her removal at top volume, many since before she was sworn in. She’s not the only one on the Democrats’ chopping block, either – Senate Republicans Ted Cruz (Texas) and Josh Hawley (Missouri) have also been placed on the naughty list for voting against the certification of Joe Biden’s November election victory, as have all 147 of the Republican congressmen who voted thus.

The California Democrat has pointed to social media posts appearing to express support for conspiracy theories about both the Parkland and Sandy Hook school shootings, the QAnon psyop, and the notion that a “bullet to the head” would be the only way to pry House speaker Nancy Pelosi out of office, denouncing it all as “advocacy for extremism and sedition.” While Greene has since distanced herself from most of these opinions, she was democratically elected with that slate of views, and demanding she not only receive a reprimand from House minority leader Kevin McCarthy but also be stripped of her committee assignments and even her congressional seat is telling voters in no uncertain terms that their opinions do not matter.

And while some lawmakers have stopped at merely demanding she be stripped of her position on the Education and Labor Committee, claiming that her questions about Parkland somehow constituted “mocking” the dead children, Gomez and others have sought to muscle her out of the House altogether, their hysterical attacks resembling the high-volume propaganda assaults on Trump over the last four years.

In a way, however, the attacks on Greene are even more absurd than the Orange Man Bad brigade. She ran unopposed in the general election for her Georgia district after winning the Republican primary. Surely, if her conspiracy-mongering was so toxic and dangerous, the Democrats could have found someone to run against her?

The party’s blandishments have clearly had some effect, as House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (Louisiana) and GOP Conference Chair Liz Cheney (Wyoming) have publicly denounced their Georgia colleague and pleaded for McCarthy to do the same. He has promised to “have a conversation” with her about the comments.

But it’s hard to see a route toward removing Greene from Congress legitimately, given that a two-thirds House majority would be required and there is no precedent for using lawmakers’ statements before being elected. Then again, no calls for an actual democratic process to remove Greene have surfaced. Instead, there’s Gomez’s resolution, New York Democratic-socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s pointed comments about “white supremacists” and QAnon, and Parkland survivor turned spoiled-child anti-gun activist David Hogg literally ordering McCarthy to strip Greene of her committee posts.

The media’s unhinged obsession with Trump only made him stronger, convincing his followers he really was under attack by an unelected Deep State determined to stop him from enacting his agenda. Greene, her backers incensed by what they believe is that same system’s attempt to shred her, appears to be following in his footsteps. Rather than embark on a tiresome apology tour every time Media Matters dug up a new social media post, Greene shut down CNN’s pearl-clutchers last year after they accused her of spreading conspiracy theories. Rather than issue a point-by-point denial of all the thoughtcrimes the outlet had accused her of, she embraced the attacks as a “badge of honor.”

And to avoid those ordinary people getting even a foothold of control over their political future, the ruling class is pulling up every ladder, no longer even pretending average Americans can hoist themselves up by their bootstraps and enjoy a better life than their parents’ (or serve in government, for that matter). The same smug oligarchs who urged anyone banned from social media to “create your own platform” only to kill Parler, who urged those shut out from the financial system to “make your own market” only to ban trading certain stocks on Robinhood, are now daring downtrodden Americans to construct their own political system. As the nation saw on January 6, those who’ve been excluded from the political system are willing to call the oligarchs’ bluff.

Unfortunately, the political system so often referred to as “our democracy” bears less and less resemblance to a democracy as time goes on. From the Washington Post complaining ordinary Americans have too much choice in political primaries, to Democratic fundraiser ActBlue banning a Kansas House candidate from accepting donations due to a teenage history with ‘revenge porn,’ it’s abundantly clear that the ruling class do not in fact want ordinary people to have a say in who represents them in Washington.

Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Twitter @velocirapture23

January 29, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite | | Leave a comment

6 Warning Signs from Biden’s First Week in Office

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | January 27, 2021

It’s been a busy first week for the 46th President [sic] of the United States, there are the 20,000 troops occupying the capitol city to organise, as well as the totally unprecedented show-trial of his immediate predecessor.

You know, usual democracy type stuff.

On top of that, Biden has now signed at least 37 executive orders in his first week. The record for any President, and more than the previous four presidents combined.

What do these orders, or any of his other moves, tell us about the future plans of the recently “elected” administration? Nothing good, unfortunately.

1. VACCINATION PASSPORTS

I still remember people claiming the introduction of vaccination passports (or immunity passes or the like) was just a “conspiracy theory”, the paranoid fantasy of fringe “covidiots”. All the way back in December, when they were getting fact-checked by tabloid journalists who can’t do basic maths.

These days they are rebranded as “freedom certificates” which are “divisive, politically tricky and probably inevitable”.

Many countries are already preparing to roll it out, including Iceland the UK and South Africa. Biden’s “Executive Order on Promoting COVID-19 Safety in Domestic and International Travel” adds the US to this list:

International Certificates of Vaccination or Prophylaxis. Consistent with applicable law, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of HHS, and the Secretary of Homeland Security (including through the Administrator of the TSA), in coordination with any relevant international organizations, shall assess the feasibility of linking COVID-19 vaccination to International Certificates of Vaccination or Prophylaxis (ICVP) and producing electronic versions of ICVPs.

2. CABINET APPOINTMENTS

Biden’s cabinet is praised as the “most diverse” in history, but will hiring a few non-white people really change the decades-old policies of US Imperialism? It certainly doesn’t look like it.

His pick for Under Secretary of State is Victoria Nuland, a neocon warmonger and one of the masterminds of the Maidan coup in Ukraine in 2014. She is married to Robert Kagan, another neocon warmonger, co-founder of the Project for a New American Century and senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and one of the masterminds behind the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The incoming Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, is also an inveterate US Imperialist, arguing for every US military intervention since the 1990s, and criticised Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria.

Biden’s pick for Defence Secretary is the first African-American ever appointed to this role, but former General Lloyd Austin is hardly going be some kind of “progressive” voice in his cabinet. He’s a career soldier who retired from the military in 2016 to join the board of Raytheon Technologies, an arms manufacturer and military contractor.

As “diverse” as this cabinet may be in skin colour or gender… there is most certainly no “diversity” of opinion or policy. There are very few new faces and no new thoughts.

So, it looks like we can expect more of the same in terms of foreign policy. A fact that’s already been displayed in…

3. IRAQ…

Despite heavy resistance from the military and Deep State, Donald Trump wanted to end the war in Iraq and pledged to pull American troops out of the country. This was one of Trump’s more popular policies, and during the campaign Biden made no mention of intending to reverse that decision.

Then, on the very day of Biden’s inauguration, ISIS conducted their deadliest suicide bombing for over three years, and suddenly the situation was too unstable for the US to leave, and Biden is being forced to “review” Trump’s planned withdrawal.

The Iraqi parliament has made it clear it wants the US to take its military off their soil, so any American forces on Iraqi land are technically there illegally in contravention of international law. But that never bothered them before.

4. … AFGHANISTAN…

Turns out the US can’t withdraw from Afghanistan either. Last February Trump signed a deal with the Taliban that all US personnel would leave Afghanistan by May 2021.

Joe Biden has already committed to “reviewing” this deal. Sec. Blinken was quoted as saying that Biden’s admin wanted:

“to end this so-called forever war [but also] retain some capacity to deal with any resurgence of terrorism, which is what brought us there in the first place”.

As a great man once said, nothing someone says before the word “but” really counts. The US will not be withdrawing from Afghanistan, and if there is any public pressure to do so, the government will simply claim the Taliban broke their side of the deal first, or stage a few terrorist attacks.

5. … AND SYRIA

Far from simply continuing the on-going wars, there are already signs Biden’s “diverse” team will look to escalate, or even start, other conflicts.

Syria was another theatre of war from which Donald Trump wanted to extricate the United States, unilaterally ordering all US troops from the country in late 2019.

We now know the Pentagon ignored those orders. They lied to the President, telling Trump they had followed his orders… but not withdrawing a single man. This organized mutiny against the Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces was played for a joke in the media when it was finally revealed.

There will be no need for any such duplicity now that Biden is in the Oval Office, he was a vocal critic of the decision to withdraw, claiming it gave ISIS a “new lease of life”. Indeed, within two days of his being sworn in a column of American military vehicles was seen entering Syria from Iraq.

6. DOMESTIC TERRORISM

We called this before the inauguration. They made it just too obvious. Before the dirty footprints had been cleaned from Nancy Pelosi’s desk it was clear where it was all going.

Within 24 hours of being sworn in as president, Biden had ordered a “review of the threat posed by domestic terrorism”.

As usual, the press are laying down the covering fire for this. Talking heads have been busily comparing MAGA voters to al Qaida in television interviews. The Washington Post and New Yorker journal have cut-and-paste pieces about this supposed threat. Politico published an article titled “Biden vowed to defeat domestic terrorism. The how is the hard part”, which outlines what Biden could do:

Direct the Justice Department, FBI and National Security Council to execute a top-down approach prioritizing domestic terrorism; pass new domestic terrorism legislation; or do a bit of both as Democrats propose a crack down on social media giants like Facebook for algorithms that promote conspiracy laden posts.

That last part is key. The “crack down on social media” part, because the anti-Domestic Terrorism legislation will likely be very focused on communication and so-called “misinformation”.

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez has publicly called for a congressional panel to “rein in” the media:

We’re going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so you can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation,”

And who will be the target of these crack downs and new legislations? Well, according John Brennan (ex-head of the CIA and accomplished war criminal), practically anybody:

They’re casting a wide net. Expect “extremist”, “bigot” and “racist” to be just a few of the words which have their meanings totally revised in the next few months. “Conspiracy theorist” will be used a lot, too.

Further, they are moving closer and closer toward the “anyone who disagrees with us is literally insane” model. With many articles actually talking about “de-programming” Trump voters. The Atlantic suggests “mental hygiene” would cure the MAGA problem.

Again AOC is on point here, clearly auditioning for the role of High Inquisitor, claiming that the new Biden government needs to fund programs that “de-radicalise” “conspiracy theorists” who are on the “spectrum of radicalisation”.

*

As I said at the beginning, it’s been a busy week for Joe Biden, but you can sum up his biggest policy plans in one short sentence: More violence overseas, less tolerance of dissent and strict clampdowns on “misinformation”.

How progressive.

January 27, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Illegal Occupation, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , , | Leave a comment

Reflecting the Authoritarian Climate, Washington Will Remain Militarized Until At Least March

The idea of troops in US streets for an extended period of time – an extreme measure even when temporary – has now become close to a sacred consensus

By Glenn Greenwald | January 26, 2021

Washington, DC has been continuously militarized beginning the week leading up to Joe Biden’s inauguration, when 20,000 National Guard troops were deployed onto the streets of the nation’s capital. The original justification was that this show of massive force was necessary to secure the inauguration in light of the January 6 riot at the Capitol.

But with the inauguration over and done, those troops remain and are not going anywhere any time soon. Working with federal law enforcement agencies, the National Guard Bureau announced on Monday that between 5,000 and 7,000 troops will remain in Washington until at least mid-March.

The rationale for this extraordinary, sustained domestic military presence has shifted several times, typically from anonymous U.S. law enforcement officials. The original justification — the need to secure the inaugural festivities — is obviously no longer operative.

So the new claim became that the impeachment trial of former President Trump that will take place in the Senate in February necessitated military reinforcements. On Sunday, Politico quoted “four people familiar with the matter” to claim that “Trump’s upcoming Senate impeachment trial poses a security concern that federal law enforcement officials told lawmakers last week requires as many as 5,000 National Guard troops to remain in Washington through mid-March.”

The next day, AP, citing “a U.S. official,” said the ongoing troop deployment was needed due to “ominous chatter about killing legislators or attacking them outside of the U.S. Capitol.” But the anonymous official acknowledged that “the threats that law enforcement agents are tracking vary in specificity and credibility.” Even National Guard troops complained that they “have so far been given no official justifications, threat reports or any explanation for the extended mission — nor have they seen any violence thus far.”

It is hard to overstate what an extreme state of affairs it is to have a sustained military presence in American streets. Prior deployments have been rare, and usually were approved for a limited period and/or in order to quell a very specific, ongoing uprising — to ensure the peaceful [de-]segregation of public schools in the South, to respond to the unrest in Detroit and Chicago in the 1960s, or to quell the 1991 Los Angeles riots that erupted after the Rodney King trial.

Deploying National Guard or military troops for domestic law enforcement purposes is so dangerous that laws in place from the country’s founding strictly limit its use. It is meant only as a last resort, when concrete, specific threats are so overwhelming that they cannot be quelled by regular law enforcement absent military reinforcements. Deploying active military troops is an even graver step than putting National Guard soldiers on the streets, but they both present dangers. As Trump’s Defense Secretary said in response to calls from some over the summer to deploy troops in response to the Black Lives Matter and Antifa protests: “The option to use active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort, and only in the most urgent and dire of situations.”

Are we even remotely at such an extreme state where ordinary law enforcement is insufficient? The January 6 riot at the Capitol would have been easily repelled with just a couple hundred more police officers. The U.S. is the most militarized country in the world, and has the most para-militarized police force on the planet. Earlier today, the Acting Chief of the Capitol Police acknowledged that they had advanced knowledge of what was planned but failed to take necessary steps to police it.

Future violent acts in the name of right-wing extremism, as well as other causes, is highly likely if not inevitable. But the idea that the country faces some sort of existential armed insurrection that only the military can suppress is laughable on its face.

Recall that ABC News, on January 11, citing “an internal FBI bulletin obtained by ABC News,” claimed that “starting this week and running through at least Inauguration Day, armed protests are being planned at all 50 state capitols and at the U.S. Capitol.” The news outlet added in highly dramatic and alarming tones:

The FBI has also received information in recent days on a group calling for “storming” state, local and federal government courthouses and administrative buildings in the event President Donald Trump is removed from office prior to Inauguration Day. The group is also planning to “storm” government offices in every state the day President-elect Joe Biden will be inaugurated, regardless of whether the states certified electoral votes for Biden or Trump.

None of that happened. There was virtually no unrest or violence during inauguration week — except for some anti-Biden protests held by leftist and anarchist protesters that resulted in a few smashed windows at the Oregon Democratic Party and some vandalism at a Starbucks in Seattle. “Trump supporters threatened state Capitols but failed to show on Inauguration Day,” was the headline NBC News chose to try to justify this gap between media claims and reality.

This threat seems wildly overblown by the combination of media outlets looking for ratings, law enforcement agencies searching for power, and Democratic Party operatives eager to exploit the climate of fear for a new War on Terror.

But now is not a moment when there is much space for questioning anything, especially not measures ostensibly undertaken in the name of combatting white-supremacist right-wing extremism — just as no questioning of supposed security measures was tolerated in the wake of the 9/11 attack. And so the scenes of soldiers on the streets of the nation’s capital, there in the thousands and for an indefinite period of time, is provoking little to no concern.

What makes this all the more remarkable is that a mere seven months ago, a major controversy erupted when The New York Times published an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) which, at its core, advocated the deployment of military troops to quell the social unrest, protests and riots that erupted over the summer after the killing in Minneapolis of George Floyd. To justify the deployment of National Guard and active duty military forces, Cotton emphasized how many people, including police officers, had been seriously maimed or even killed as part of that unrest:

Outnumbered police officers, encumbered by feckless politicians, bore the brunt of the violence. In New York State, rioters ran over officers with cars on at least three occasions. In Las Vegas, an officer is in “grave” condition after being shot in the head by a rioter. In St. Louis, four police officers were shot as they attempted to disperse a mob throwing bricks and dumping gasoline; in a separate incident, a 77-year-old retired police captain was shot to death as he tried to stop looters from ransacking a pawnshop. This is “somebody’s granddaddy,” a bystander screamed at the scene.

(Cotton’s claim that police officers “bore the brunt of the violence” was questionable, given how many protesters were also killed or maimed, but it is true that numerous police officers were attacked, including fatally).

Cotton acknowledged that the central cause of the protests was a just one, noting they were provoked by “the wrongful death of George Floyd.” He also strongly affirmed the right of people to peacefully protest in support of that cause, accusing those justifying the violence of “a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters,” adding: “A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.”

But he insisted that, absent military reinforcements, innocent people, principally ones in poor communities, will suffer. “These rioters, if not subdued, not only will destroy the livelihoods of law-abiding citizens but will also take more innocent lives,” Cotton wrote, adding: “Many poor communities that still bear scars from past upheavals will be set back still further.”

The backlash to the publication of this op-ed was immediate, intense, and, at least in my memory, unprecedented. Very few people were interested in engaging the merits of Cotton’s call for a deployment of troops in order to prove the argument was misguided.

Their view was not that Cotton’s plea for soldiers in the streets was misguided, but that advocacy for it was so obscene, so extremist, so dangerous and repugnant, that the mere publication of the op-ed by The Paper of Record was an act of grave immorality.

“I’ll probably get in trouble for this, but to not say something would be immoral. As a black woman, as a journalist, I am deeply ashamed that we ran this,” pronounced the paper’s Nikole Hannah-Jones in a now-deleted tweet. The New York Times Magazine writer Taffy Brodesser-Akner posted a multi-tweet denunciation that compared Cotton to an anti-Semite who “says, ‘The Jew is a pig,’” argued that “hatred dressed up as opinion is not something I have to withstand,” and concluded with this flourish: “I love working at the Times and most days of the week I’m very proud to be part of its mission. But tonight, I understand the people who treat me like I work at a tobacco company.”

Former NYT editor and Huffington Post editor-in-chief Lydia Polgreen announced, also in a now-deleted tweet: “I spent some of the happiest and most productive years of my life working for the New York Times. So it is with love and sadness that I say: running this puts Black @nytimes staff – and many, many others – in danger.” That publication of the Cotton op-ed “puts Black New York Times staff in danger” became a mantra recited by more journalists than one can list.

Two editors — including the paper’s Editorial Page editor James Benett and a young assistant editor Adam Rubenstein — were forced out of their jobs, in the middle of a pandemic, for the crime not of endorsing Cotton’s argument but merely airing it. Media reports attributed their departure to a “staff revolt.” The paper itself appended a major editor’s note: “We have concluded that the essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published.” In addition to alleged flaws in the editorial process, the paper also said “the tone of the essay in places is needlessly harsh and falls short of the thoughtful approach that advances useful debate.”

There is a meaningful difference between deploying National Guard troops and active duty soldiers on American streets. But both measures are extraordinary, create a climate of militarization, have a history of resulting in excessive force against citizens engaged in peaceful protest and constitutionally protected dissent, and present threats and dangers to civil liberties far beyond ordinary use of law enforcement.

Why was the idea of troops in American streets so grotesque and offensive in June, 2020 but so normalized now? Why were these troops likely to indiscriminately arrest and murder black reporters and other journalists over the summer but are now trusted to protect them? And what does it say about the current climate, and the serious dangers it poses, that the public is being trained so easily to acquiesce to extreme measures in the name of domestic security?

We are witnessing the media and their public treat what ought to be regarded with great suspicion as not only normal but desirable, all through the manipulation of fears and inflation of threats. That does not bode well for those who seek to impede the imminent attempt to begin a new domestic War on Terror.

January 26, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Fake News, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite | | Leave a comment

New York Times touts ‘How to Blow Up A Pipeline’ as a ‘new way to think’

Book argues ‘strategic acceptance of property destruction & violence has been the only route for revolutionary change’

Climate Depot | January 25, 2021

NYT’s Tatiana Schlossberg (the daughter of Caroline Kennedy): How to Blow Up a Pipeline author Andreas Malm “argues that there should be room for tactics other than strict nonviolence and peaceful demonstrations — indeed, he is a bit contemptuous of those who offer strategic pacifism as a solution — and notes that fetishizing nonviolence in past protest movements sanitizes history, removing agency from the people who fought, sometimes violently, for justice, freedom and equality. Sure. But the problem with violence, even if it’s meant only to destroy “fossil capital,” is that ultimately it’s impossible to control.”

Climate Depot note: The website of the publisher of the book, Verso books, asks, “why haven’t we moved beyond peaceful protest?” The publisher website explains: “[How to Blow Up a Pipeline author Andreas] Malm argues that the strategic acceptance of property destruction and violence has been the only route for revolutionary change.”

“Andreas Malm makes an impassioned call for the climate movement to escalate its tactics in the face of ecological collapse. We need, he argues, to force fossil fuel extraction to stop—with our actions, with our bodies, and by defusing and destroying its tools. We need, in short, to start blowing up some oil pipelines.”

New York Magazine climate reporter David Wallace-Wells, also provided a featured review of Malm’s book: “If a livable world requires an all-over transformation, where and when and how do we start? Perhaps with this book, a provocative manifesto from the pioneering theorist of the climate age.” – David Wallace-Wells, author of The Uninhabitable Earth

In 2010, NASA’s former lead climate scientist also endorsed a similar sounding book. See: James Hansen declared author ‘has it right…the system is the problem’ — Book proposes ‘razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine’

2013: Video: Eco-Terror Threats Issued at Rally: Climate Depot attended: ‘We will dismantle the Pipeline’ sign prominently displayed at rally — ‘By any means necessary’

January 25, 2021 Posted by | Book Review, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Progressive Hypocrite | | Leave a comment

Biden Justice Department investigates ITSELF on whether any employees tried to help Trump overturn election result

RT | January 25, 2021

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) is probing whether any current or former official tried to help overturn President Joe Biden’s election victory, apparently seeking to root out employees who lack loyalty to the new regime.

The investigation, announced by Inspector General Michael Horowitz on Monday, will be limited to current or former employees of the DOJ. Horowitz said he aims to “reassure the public that an appropriate agency is investigating the allegations.”

Former President Donald Trump has been accused of trying to get the DOJ to take legal action to help overturn Biden’s victory, based on his allegations of massive election fraud, but any appeal for help was apparently unsuccessful. In fact, ABC News host George Stephanopoulos and other media figures have cited a DOJ statement that there was no evidence of widespread election fraud as a talking point in their efforts to dismiss Trump’s allegations as preposterous.

“The Department of Justice, led by William Barr, said there was no widespread evidence of fraud,” Stephanopoulos said Sunday in an interview with Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky). “Can’t you just say the words, ‘This election was not stolen.’”

The New York Times said on Friday that DOJ lawyer Jeffrey Clark plotted with Trump to oust acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and try to force Georgia lawmakers to overturn the state’s election results. Like a steady stream of other anti-Trump articles by the newspaper, the story was based on comments by officials who declined to be identified.

The investigation marks the latest inquiry by the new Biden-led government into alleged wrongdoing by the Trump administration. The House this month voted to impeach Trump for a second time, and the Senate will hold a trial seeking to convict the former president even as it juggles with confirmation hearings and trying to push through Biden’s legislative agenda.

The DOJ not only declined to launch the sort of comprehensive election fraud investigation that Trump sought, but also chose to keep probes involving Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, from public view until after the election.

January 25, 2021 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite | , , | Leave a comment

“Aid and Comfort” To the Enemy: Speaker Pelosi Ramps Up Attacks On Republican Colleagues Amidst Calls For Expulsions

By Jonathan Turley | January 23, 2021

Speaker Nancy Pelosi ramped up the attacks on members of her own house this week, accusing them of giving “aid and comfort” to those who want to destroy the nation. The comments came after Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo., denied a public accusation by Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., that she personally took rioters around the capitol for a tour before the attack on January 6th. Boebert pointed out that the “rioters” were her family members and she has never given such tours. Rather than encouraging colleagues to avoid baseless and inflammatory accusations pending review of what occurred on January 6th, Pelosi threw gasoline on the fire and accused her colleagues of giving “aid and comfort” to those who were trying to destroy the Constitution and the country. It is, in my view, another failure of leadership by the Speaker in her duties to the institution as a whole.

Like many, I support a commission to look into how these rioters gained such rapid entry into the Capitol Hill. However, Democratic members have claimed that Republican members were actual co-conspirators in the riot in supplying access to the building to plan out the attack. Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D., N.J.) went public with an extraordinary allegation against some of her colleagues that they conducted secret surveillance in a conspiracy with rioters at the Capitol. Sherrill stated in a Facebook live address to her constituents that she witnessed the surveillance personally. She said unidentified members of Congress “had groups coming through the Capitol” in “a reconnaissance for the next day.”

Sherill has still not supplied any of the names of her colleagues to who worked as inside co-conspirators. As noted earlier, this is an unambiguous allegation of criminal conduct against colleagues. Either members were conspiring in a crime or Sherill unfairly defamed her colleagues. Article I, Section 5, the Constitution says, “Each House (of Congress) may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.” The House may discipline members for violations of both unlawful conduct as well as any conduct which the House of Representatives finds has reflected discredit upon the institution. In re Chapman, 166 U.S. 661, 669-670 (1897). A House Select Committee in 1967 stated:

Censure of a Member has been deemed appropriate in cases of a breach of the privileges of the House. There are two classes of privilege, the one, affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings; and the other, affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of Members, individually. Most cases of censure have involved the use of unparliamentary language, assaults upon a Member or insults to the House by introductions of offensive resolutions, but in five cases in the House and one in the Senate [as of 1967] censure was based on corrupt acts by a Member, and in another Senate case censure was based upon noncooperation with and abuse of Senate committees.

If members did conspire as alleged by Rep. Sherrill, they could be expelled for that criminal act. They would also face prosecution. It would be a betrayal of not just Congress but the country.

One would think that this rising level of acrimony would prompt a Speaker to calm her members and call for an investigation. Speaker Pelosi however proceeded to ramp up the rhetoric. She started out well by stating, “You have to have evidence for what has happened.” She then took a shot at Republicans and stated “There is no question that there were members in this body who gave aid and comfort to those with the idea that they were embracing a lie — a lie perpetrated by the president of the United States that the election did not have legitimacy.” The language comes from the treason language in the Constitution Article III, Section 3 states: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or, in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”

In the context of alleged criminal conspiracy by members, the use of this language clearly suggested members were more than just politically at fault for their positions. It suggested that they were traitors.

These attacks are coming as some members are calling for the possible expulsion of members for challenging the electoral votes, an act expressly allowed under federal law and repeatedly done by Democrats in prior elections. It is an example of the rage-filled politics that continues to build in our country, including calls for blacklists and punitive measures against anyone deemed supportive of Trump. As I noted in today’s column, it is a crisis of leadership in this country when we desperately need leaders who can unite us rather than capitalize on our divisions.

January 24, 2021 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Progressive Hypocrite | | Leave a comment

Biden’s Long History of Abusing Power

By Stephen Lendman | January 23, 2021

January 20 was a day of mourning for countless numbers of people harmed by Biden that went on for nearly half a century in public office.

The same holds for misery he’ll inflict on countless more ahead —ordinary people exploited so privileged ones can benefit, including himself and family members.

He built a dishonorable career on a foundation of shilling for powerful interests that included waging wars on humanity at home and abroad.

His record as US senator and vice president reflects virtually everything disturbing about dirty politics as usual in Washington.

It includes endless examples of breaching the rule of law and betraying the public trust.

In 2002, then-Harvard law professor Elizabeth Warren slammed him, saying:

“His energetic work on behalf of the credit card companies has earned him the affection of the banking industry and protected him from any well-funded challengers for his Senate seat.”

Even the NYT criticized him in 2005 for “vot(ing) against a proposal to require credit card companies to provide more effective warnings to consumers about the consequences of paying only the minimum amount due each month.”

Throughout his public life, he backed predatory corporate interests and the military, industrial, security complex at the expense of peace, equity, justice and the rule of law — notions he always disdained.

He’s one of the ugliest ugly Americans in Washington — past and present, a figure to be despised, never trusted.

Along with his political record of shame, he was accused many times of acting inappropriately toward women and girls.

At least eight women accused him of inappropriate touching and/or violating their personal space — then refusing to apologize for his unacceptable behavior.

He was criticized for offensive remarks about the physical appearance of young girls when campaigning.

Former staffer in Biden’s Senate office Tara Reade accused him of inappropriate touching and more, saying the following:

He “used to put his hand on my shoulder and run his finger up my neck.”

In 1993, she accused him of pressing her up against a wall, kissing her neck, prying her legs open with his knees, and penetrating her digitally — a serious charge.

She filed a police report in Washington, accusing him of sexual assault.

She also filed a Senate complaint. Around half a dozen former Biden staffers said they were told about the assault incident.

Other women accused Biden of sexual assault and harassment.

Reade’s former neighbor in the 1990s Lynda LaCasse said Biden’s assault “happened, and I know it did because I remember talking about it.”

Last May, Biden denied the accusation, claiming it “never happened.”

Around the same time, Reade called on Biden to withdraw from the presidential race, adding:

“(I)f Joe Biden takes” a polygraph test, so will she.

Describing the alleged incident, Reade said:

“He’s talking to me and his hands are everywhere and everything is happening very quickly.”

“He was kissing me and he said, very low, ‘Do you want to go somewhere else?’ ”

“He said, ‘Come on, man. I heard you liked me.’ ”

When Biden entered the presidential race last year, eight women publicly accused him of sexual harassment, including unwanted kissing, hugging and inappropriate touching.

Former Nevada state assemblywoman Lucy Flores earlier accused Biden of making her feel uncomfortable by inappropriate touching and kissing.

He’s “not just a hugger,” she said. He “very clearly was invading women’s spaces without their consent in a way that made them feel uncomfortable.”

“Does he potentially have the capacity to go beyond that? That’s the answer everyone is trying to get at.”

On inauguration day January 20, Reade commented on his ascension to power, saying the following:

Viewing the inauguration was “unspeakably hard to watch.”

“Coming forward about being sexually harassed and assaulted in 1993 when I was Joe Biden’s staffer was excruciating on so many levels.”

“Biden used his power and resources with certain media to erase me and silence me.”

“I stand in solidarity with all survivors coming up against such power.”

“I will not be silenced. Instead of talking about saving the country’s soul he should be held accountable for his actions.”

“The hard part is I believe in many policies that will move forward as I am a progressive independent, but it is unspeakably hard to watch the man who assaulted me go to the most powerful position in the land.”

“I’m sorry that I’m politically inconvenient but my perpetrator was Joe Biden. And people need to deal with it.”

Separately, Reade tweeted:

“Today is yet again another difficult day for survivors of sexual violence.”

“While I’m thankful Trump was defeated, the idea of the man who assaulted me as our president is still terribly painful.”

“I will be sharing resources for survivors today for #Inauguration2021.

“Instead of talking about saving the country’s soul he should be held accountable for his actions.”

“The hard part is I believe in many policies that will move forward as I am a progressive independent, but it is unspeakably hard to watch the man who assaulted me go to the most powerful position in the land.”

Trump once bragged about being able to do whatever he wanted with women with remarks like:

“When you’re a star, they let you do it.”

Draw your own conclusions about the duo.

A Final Comment

Psychology Today earlier called sexual assault “any sexual activity that occurs without consent,” adding:

It’s “a pervasive problem. In America, one in three women and one in four men experience sexual violence in their lifetimes, according to the National Institutes of Health.”

“And those numbers are likely an underestimate due to the shame and fear that prevent many survivors from reporting abuse.”

“Sex and violence are closely linked,” notably by “dominant men forcing themselves on women.”

“(S)exual assault is more about power than…sex…motivation stem(ming) from the perpetrator’s need for dominance and control.”

Children and adolescents are affected like adults.

Biden is a political predator many times over, his long record of shame well documented.

Now in the nation’s highest office.

He got there the old-fashioned way — by stealing it.

January 23, 2021 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Will Sir David Attenborough attempt to save Red-listed Kittiwakes from giant wind turbine project?

Global Warming Policy Forum – 19/01/21

On the 31st of December last year Alok Sharma, then Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, gave planning consent for the giant Hornsea 3 offshore wind farm. He decided to over-ride planning inspectors who had advised refusal on the grounds of unacceptable environmental impacts on the Red-listed Kittiwake populations of the East Coast, whose resting and nesting sites are protected by Natura 2000 legislation, some of the strongest environmental protection in Europe.

In giving consent Mr Sharma said that that contribution of the Hornsea 3 scheme to reaching Net Zero was more important than the affect on the local environment and its bird populations, and justified ignoring Natura 2000 protection.

This sets a precedent that the renewables industry has already identified as “opening the floodgates” for any major industrial development that can make a claim, however tenuous, to low carbon credentials.

The GWPF has written to Sir David Attenborough, asking him to intervene personally to reverse this decision and request a moratorium of the mega-project before it is too late.

January 19, 2021 Posted by | Environmentalism, Progressive Hypocrite | | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »