WWI Hell March, Capitalist Propaganda, Thought Control, Censorship, Noam Chomsky & WikiLeaks

WWI Hell March,  Capitalist Propaganda, Thought Control, Censorship, Noam Chomsky & WikiLeaks German Army Hell March WWI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6rPoCoSkG4 Noam Chomsky American academic BBC interview 2003 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqznqIpkZz0 [for quotation purposes, confirm audio] PARTIAL EXTRACTS Narrator: ... His comments post 9/11, when he described the US as a leading terrorist state drew hostile fire even from allies on the left. He has the gloves back on, denouncing Western greed & hypocrisy. Noam Chomsky: We need not rehearse the reasons why Britain, and later the United States, have been determined to control the Gulf region. It's enough to recall the observation of the State Department in 1945 that the resources of the region are a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history  <<  Chomsky most recent work:  "Pirates & Emperors"  >> Insert: Book: The City of God (410 CE) Sait Augustine (354-430) Latin Church Father b. North Africa Bishop of city of Hippo The City of God written by him following sack of Rome by Alaric & the Vandals Pagans blamed conversion of Roman empire to Christianity for sack of Vandals http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aug-city2.asp [In respect of Chomsky book title]   Noam Chomsky:   That's plagiarised from Saint Augustine, who in The City of God has a story about Alexander.  His forces capture a pirate, and there's an audience between the pirate and the emperor, and he asks the pirate, "How dare you molest the seas?" And the pirate tells him, "I am a small man with a tiny boat, so they call me a pirate.  You're an emperor with a vast navy and you molest the world, but they call you an emperor." And that's a good allegory for the world and, in particular, for the contemporary world. The pirates are the ones who were contemned and not the emperors. Of course, the general population is attacked by both the emperors and the pirates. Saint Augustine is not saying that the pirate is a nice fellow; he's just saying he's a small criminal as compared with a major criminal. Interviewer: So, who does control the world?  Who are the emperors? Noam Chomsky: Overwhelmingly the United States since the Second World War, Britain before that, and concentrations of private power, which are enormous and tyrannical corporations closely linked to the powerful states. It's a network of concentrated power with international institutions, like IMF and so on, which sometimes call themselves the 'Masters of the World'.   It's a phrase that was in the Financial Times, a little ironically, but not wrong. Actually, they call themselves the 'Masters of the Universe'.  Adam Smith called them the 'Masters of the World'.  Now they're called the 'Masters of the Universe'. They didn't have space age in Smith's time. Interviewer: But don't you sometimes need big government to deal with big business, since there is a kind of balance between these large forces? Noam Chomsky:   It's like saying that there's a balance between the members of the Board of Directors of General Motors. Yes, there's some kind of a balance.  But they're so closely interlinked and they're connected, that to first approximation they're the same thing. Interviewer: Now, did September 11th, do you think, mark a change in world politics? Noam Chomsky:   It was a historic event.  It was the first time in hundreds of years that the West, Europe, and its offshoots, have suffered the criminal atrocity that they constantly carry out against others, which is quite a change.   That's why there's such shock in the West.  This kind of thing we do to you, you don't do it to us. It's like the reaction in England in the so-called Indian mutiny rebellion, in India.  Tremendous shock. [tape distortion] ... would use it as an opportunity to intensify repressive and somewhat violent actions, and that's just what's happened. [skip] Interviewer: You make quite a lot in the book on the fact that there is freedom of expression in America.  But what you do point to is something more insidious, because you suggest that there is actually -- although there may be freedom of expression -- there's a control of freedom of thought. Now, how does that happen? Noam Chomsky:   It was understood, back in the time of the First World War that it's becoming much more difficult to control people by force. The popular struggles have led to the development of unions, the parliamentary Labour party, franchise extended and so on, and coercion is just not going to work by force.  So, therefore, you have to control thought. It's very striking that the contemporary systems of thought control, which are highly developed, very self-conscious, you know, leaders talk all about it.  They come from England and the United States. So the British Ministry of Information, which the reader of any Orwell knows what it was, that's from the First World War. It was aimed primarily to convert a pacifist population into raving anti-German fanatics, and it worked.  And it impressed people. It impressed the business world.  That's the origins of the modern public relations industry. It impressed American intellectuals who developed the conception of what they call the 'manufacture of consent', control of thought. It impressed Hitler, who blamed the German defeat on superior Anglo-American propaganda and vowed that next time Germany would be prepared. And it has led in the United States primarily, and in England secondarily, to huge industries devoted to control of attitudes, because you cannot control people by force. Interviewer: But dissent has been growing since the 1960s in the Western world.  I mean, people are far more sophisticated now.  Even popular culture reflects the fact that anything from the X-Files to the film, The Insider, that the idea of people discussing things of trying to manipulate public opinion; I mean, that's highly developed now. Noam Chomsky:   Sure.  But when people were under the lash they knew about it, too. People are so aware of it, that it has led to tremendous cynicism about almost anything. I mean, nobody believes what government officials say, nobody believes what they read in the press, people don't believe professions.  It's led to enormous cynicism and tremendous opposition.  In fact, in my view, the more crucial things than the things you mentioned, are opposition to aggression. Just take a look at the current war in Iraq and compare it with, say, the Vietnam War. It's a comparison which is often made about the protest, but the comparison is completely false. The opposition to the war in Iraq is far greater than it ever was to the war in Vietnam at any remotely comparable stage, and this is the first war, I think in European history, Europe and the United States -- the first one I can think of -- where there was massive protests before the war.  It's never happened. I mean, in the case of Vietnam War, there was no protest until years after the war. Just in the last 30 or 40 years, in say the united States, the level of civilisation among the general public -- not intellectuals, that's a separate category, but among the general public -- it's advanced enormously. Interviewer: So, do you think that intellectuals are not sufficiently engaged?  Do you think that they have become cynical? Noam Chomsky Intellectuals are a separate category. Intellectuals are mostly servants of power. I'm talking about the general public, not the intellectual world. They remain pretty constant, I don't think they are subject to these changes -- except marginally, of course, to some extent. But they are quite different and quite generally -- it goes right through history -- intellectuals have been servants of power. Take, say, the First World War. On all sides  --  Germany, England, United States, France -- intellectuals were extremely enthusiastic about the war. There were a few dissenters and the best known of them ended up in gaol, like Bertrand Russell, for example -- or, Eugene Debs, in the United States, or Rosa Luxemburg, in Germany. Very small group of critics.  Some of them best known in prison. But most intellectuals were enthusiasts for their own country, and that's common and it remains common. Intellectuals write history, so you have to be a little cautious about what they say about themselves.  And it looks prettier when it's written in books. [CONTINUES] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqznqIpkZz0 [for quotation purposes, confirm audio] NOAM CHOMSKY ON: JULIAN ASSANGE |  WIKILEAKS https://youtu.be/5MzPbRlxvfI Article Noam Chomsky Defends WikiLeaks & Declassifying Information "The threat is that the public will know what the government is up to." By Alexandra Rosenmann / AlterNet April 18, 2016 http://www.alternet.org/media/noam-chomsky-defends-wikileaks-and-declassifying-information  CAPITALISM WANTS YOU! WWI Propaganda

Brazil - Has CIA Struck Again?

BRICS five major emerging national economies developing or newly industrialised countries large, fast-growing economies significant influence on regional and global affairs represent over 3 billion people, or 42% of the world population GDP of US$16.039 trillion, equivalent to abt 20% of the gross world product estimated US$4 trillion in combined foreign reserves [wikipedia] RT News source https://www.rt.com/news/339268-brazil-rousseff-impeachment-protests/ Rousseff supporters confront MPs after Brazil congressional committee ‘recommends’ impeachment Published time: 12 Apr, 2016 05:01 Edited time: 12 Apr, 2016 05:38 A Brazilian Special Parliamentary Committee has voted to recommend the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff in a move that was slammed as an attempted coup by her supporters. They rejected accusations of alleged budget manipulation during her re-election campaign. The 65-member congressional committee voted 38 to 27 to recommend her impeachment, paving the way for the possible dismissal of the Brazilian president. The lower house of Brazil's Congress is now expected to vote April 17 on whether to impeach Rousseff. At least 342 of the 513 members of the body need to vote for impeachment for the measure to move to the Senate. If half the Senate votes for impeachment, Rousseff would be temporarily suspended from office pending a Senate trial. If the impeachment charges stand ground, the 69-year-old who took up the presidential seat in 2011, will be the first to be impeached since 1992. More than two decades ago Fernando Collor de Mello resigned right before a Senate conviction prompted by corruption charges. After receiving the news of the commission’s vote, Rousseff was “perplexed and saddened” by the result, presidential chief of staff Jaques Wagner announced. Rousseff is suspected of having broken fiscal laws by shifting government funds ahead of her re-election campaign in 2014, which allegedly allowed her to boost public spending to drive her votes. Rousseff denies the accusations, claiming that she didn’t do anything that was not common practice in all prior administrations. Furthermore, she argues that she has not been accused of a crime which could serve as basis for any impeachment. Monday’s vote took place amid ongoing protests from both supporters and opponents of President Rousseff. Supporters of the president were quick to confront congressional committee members after the vote. Shouting “putschists”, “fascists” and “no pasaran” (they shall not pass) at the congressmen, they prevented the MPs from leaving the building. Security forces even built an 80-meter-long metal barricade in front of the congressional building to keep supporters and opponents of the government apart. Brazilian security forces also deployed thousands of troops in the capital city of Brasilia. As Brazilian society remains split over idea of Rousseff’s impeachment, local newspaper Folha de S. Paulo leaked an audio recording of Vice President Michel Temer rehearsing and address to the Brazilian people if the impeachment process were to move forward. In the leaked speech, Temer speaking as the new president says that Brazil needs a “government of national salvation” to save the country from recession as he called for unity in the political system. Reacting to the recording, Temer said the 13-minute audio message was recorded for a friend, but was distributed through WhatsApp to other party members “by accident.” source https://www.rt.com/news/339268-brazil-rousseff-impeachment-protests/ EXTRACT The Empire President: Jeremy Scahill on Obama's "Neocon" Doctrine of Military Force in U.N. Speech September 25, 2013 In an address to the United Nations General Assembly, President Obama openly embraced an aggressive military doctrine backed by previous administrations on using armed force beyond the international norm of self-defense. Obama told the world that the United States is prepared to use its military to defend what he called "our core interests" in the Middle East: U.S. access to oil. "[Obama] basically came out and said the U.S. is an imperialist nation and we’re going to do whatever we need to do to conquer areas [and] take resources from people around the world," says independent journalist Jeremy Scahill. "It’s a really naked declaration of imperialism ... When we look back at Obama’s legacy, this is going to have been a very significant period in U.S. history where the ideals of very radical right-wing forces were solidified. President Obama has been a forceful, fierce defender of empire." TRANSCRIPT This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form. NERMEEN SHAIKH: I want to turn back to President Obama’s address at the U.N. General Assembly. During the speech, Obama told the world the U.S. is prepared to use its military to defend what he called, quote, "our core interests" in the Middle East—that is, U.S. access to oil. PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests in the region. We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did in the Gulf War. We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. NERMEEN SHAIKH: That was President Obama speaking yesterday at the U.N. General Assembly. Jeremy, your response to what Obama said in his speech? JEREMY SCAHILL: I mean, during this section of the speech, my jaw sort of hit the floor. I mean, he just—he basically came out and said the United States is an imperialist nation, and we’re going to do whatever we need to to conquer areas to take resources from people around the world. I mean, it was a really naked sort of declaration of imperialism—and I don’t use that word lightly, but it really is. I mean, he pushed back against the Russians when he came out and said, "I believe America is an exceptional nation." He then, you know, defended the Gulf War and basically said that the motivation behind it was about oil, and said we’re going to continue to take such actions in pursuit of securing natural resources for ourselves and our allies. I mean, this was a pretty incredible and bold declaration that he was making, especially given what he—the way that he’s tried to portray himself around the world. On the other hand, you know, he—I mean, remember what happened right before Obama took the stage, is that the president of Brazil got up, and she herself was a former political prisoner who, you know, was abused and targeted in a different lifetime, and she gets up and just blasts the United States over the NSA spy program around the world. AMY GOODMAN: We have President Dilma Rousseff in her address to the U.N. General Assembly.     PRESIDENT DILMA ROUSSEFF: We are a democratic country, surrounded by democratic, peaceful countries that respect international law. We have been living in peace with our neighbors for more than 140 years. Like so many other Latin Americans, I myself fought on a firsthand basis against arbitrary behavior and censorship, and I could therefore not possibly fail to uncompromisingly defend individuals’ rights to privacy and my country’s sovereignty. AMY GOODMAN: That’s the Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff openly criticizing U.S. spying on her government, the news that just broke from the Ed Snowden releases that was released with Globo newspaper in Brazil by Glenn Greenwald, who is a U.S. journalist who lives in Brazil. And, Jeremy, you’re headed down there for the opening of your film, Dirty Wars, this week. JEREMY SCAHILL: Right, and, you know, I was there when this story was breaking. It is a major, major scandal in Brazil. I mean, it was such a major scandal that President—the president cancelled her state dinner with President Obama. This wasn’t just like sitting in the Oval Office or something. This is a thing where they create a huge menu, and they invite all these people, and it was meant to sort of secure this relationship of these two huge Western Hemisphere powers. I mean, Brazil is a rising power in the Western Hemisphere, and this was to be a very important moment in the history of relations between the U.S. and Brazil. And for the Brazilians to cancel it just shows you the severity of this scandal. I mean, all around the world right now, in the aftermath of the WikiLeaks cables being revealed, now you have the Edward Snowden documents, people around the world have access to documentation that in some cases is bolstering what people already thought was going on, but in other cases is revealing the extent of dirty tricks that the United States is playing on other nations around the world, and not to mention its own citizens." SOURCE http://www.democracynow.org/2013/9/25/the_empire_president_jeremy_scahill_on Dilma Rousseff President, Brazil -- economist -- Workers' Party (Brazil) -- centre-left -- one of the largest left-wing movements in Latin America -- party identified as 'socialist' -- 1988: -- party advocated repudiation of Brazil's external debt -- party advocated nationalisation of banks & mineral wealth -- party advocated land reform     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers'_Party_%28Brazil%29 -------/\/\/ Dilma Rousseff -- socialist during youth -- after 1964 Brazilian coup d'état 1964 Brazilian coup d'état -- coup = US supported overthrow of democratically elected -- Prsident Joao Goulart ('Jango') by military -- Brazilian Labour Party --  Cabo Anselmo - agent provocateur (Sailors' Revolt / navy) -- Lincoln Gordon (Abraham Lincoln Gordon) -- US ambassador Brazil (1961-1966) -- academic and govt/diplomatic career -- Kennedy's leading expert on Latin American economics -- 1960:  helped develop 'Alliance for Progress' aid program -- to prevent Latin America turning to revolution & socialism for economic progress -- grants and credits provided by the USA to Brazil -- development loans and military aid   -- Lincoln Gordon (Abraham Lincoln Gordon) -- played major role for the support of opposition versus President João Goulart -- 1964 Lincoln Gordon cable:      -- urged support of:     -- Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco     -- with a “clandestine delivery of arms"     -- with shipments of gas and oil     -- with possibility of CIA ops     *Noam Chomsky has been critical of coup     -- US destroyed Brazilian democracy     -- by supporting military coup 1964     -- support for coup initiated by Kennedy but carried to conclusion by Johnson     -- US installed first really major national security state, Nazi-like state, in Latin America     -- with high-technology torture     -- Lincoln Gordon called it 'totally democratic'     -- there was an economic increase in GNP miracle     -- there was also INCREASED SUFFERING for much of population     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Gordon NOTE:     -- actual operational files of CIA remain classified     -- preventing historians from examining CIA's direct involvement in coup     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT Exciting development in Latin America. Dilma Rousseff and her political party sound good to me.  But they also sound like a classic American capitalist 'enemy'.   Uh-oh.  Look out for the American oligarchy and its CIA machinery. Note that Brazil is one of the BRICS countries:  thus a challenger to the US-led trade-financial and power hegemony, threatening the capitalist US-led bloc's domination and plans of one world government (capitalist profits, control etc) expansion and imposition on the rest of the world. Bet the CIA has been up to dirty tricks again. Check out what they've already done to Brazil! I've only just quickly skimmed this, the 1964 Brazil coup is in keeping with what little I know of the standard American capitalist order pattern of subverting democracy in Latin America (and elsewhere) and installing oppressive US corporate friendly, US-backed, regimes.

Noam Chomsky: What Is Globalisation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdYwAXZh0ME TRANSCRIPT [for quotations, confirm audio] SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdYwAXZh0ME Noam Chomsky:  What Is Globalization? *needs proof-reading -------/\/\/   Noam Chomsky: Actually, the best definition that I know, if I can remember, is by a well-known Canadian development economist, Gerry Helleiner, who tried to summarise it in a little ditty, which went something like this (don't hold me to the exact words).  He said: The poor complain They always do But that's just idle chatter Our system brings rewards to all At least, to all who matter [Laughter] Essentially, that captures it.  OK, I can go home. [Laughter] Whenever I say 'globalisation', I mean in quotes:  now, what's called 'globalisation' is one specific modality of international integration. There's nothing wrong with international integration.  That's a great thing. It's nice to meet people from other countries and all sorts of other things. But there are various forms of possible international integration, and the one that's called 'globalisation' is one particular one. Like, it's not the new international economic order that the South was calling for, and it's not the new global system that they're now calling for; it's a different one. This new one, the one that is called, [is] the official one:  you know, the one that Thomas Friedman writes laudatory books about, and so on. Among its other properties are that a country has to open up their borders to free imports, so they have to accept imports from a highly subsidised US, and Eurpean and Canadian, agribusiness which, of course, instantly wipes out domestic production for domestic needs and that means that poor farmers are starving. One thing they can do is flee to the cities, which has the nice effect that they create a massive labour force which lowers wages, and it means that US and European manufacturers, or by now Japanese and Korean manufacturers, who are putting say assembly plants or whatever abroad, can benefit from cheaper labour and, consequently, wages can go down and, in fact, do go down while the economy booms. Mexico's a dramatic case. But if farmers don't move to urban slums to become an excess labour force and try to produce something, it can't be commodities for the domestic market for food, because they will be wiped out by imported goods. So, once again, they become what's known as a 'rational peasant' in the technical literature. A 'rational peasant' is a peasant who understands that you have to produce for export and you have to seek the maximum profit. OK, so you sort of spell that out, produce for export, stable markets, maximum profit. Well, you get the same answer as before:  cocoa, poppies, and so on. And that's what's happening. So, the globalisation and, in particular, the undermining of the attempts of the South 30 years ago to create a form of globalisation directed toward the interests of the developing word -- that means almost the entire world -- one of the major consequences of this (and it's no big secret, you can read it in standard books of political economy and so on), was to greatly accelerate production of what we call 'drugs'. I mean, not the most lethal drugs.  The most lethal ones are produced in places like North Carolina. But what we call 'lethal drugs' here, peasants have been driven to it.  They have no choices. In part by the choice by the powerful states 30 years ago to institute a particular form of international economic integration --  what's called 'globalisation'  -- in preference to another one. One which would have, for example, as one of its properties among many others, things like stabilisation of primary commodity prices and what we call 'the neoliberal programs', like opening up your borders to imports from subsidised agri-export from northern agribusiness that has the same effect. There's a lot more like this. I mean, a lot of the -- what happens to the 'rational peasants', incidentally, after they've learned their lessons properly, you know, they are kind of like the equivalent of going to Harvard or MIT, or  Chicago Graduate School, and getting a degree in economics, so they become 'rational peasants'. Well, once they've learned the lesson, they're rewarded. They're rewarded with helicopter and gun ships that you and I pay for, with chemical and biological warfare and putting experimental new biological techniques of who knows what effect, by what's called here a 'drug war'. That's the reward for having learned the lessons, after having been essentially forced into a particular kind of production by the way globalisation works out. That's one of its less discussed features. Going back to the declaration of the south:  the poor are complaining as they always do. They're calling for globalisation, for international economic integration, but are calling for a form that will be on the right of development and, in particular, the right of independent development. It means no external compulsion. SOURCE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdYwAXZh0ME -------/\/\/ Gerald Helleiner Professor Emeritus (ie. retired professor - fm. L. ēmerērī, to earn by service - TFD) Department of Economics Distinguished Research Fellow, Munk Centre for International Studies University of Toronto 1991 to 1999, Professor Helleiner: Research Director of:  Group of 24 (ie deveoping countries' caucus at IMF & World Bank) http://www.policyinnovations.org/innovators/people/data/07382 *By 'south', I first assumed Chomsky is referring to South America.  But I think he might be referring to the south of the United States, being (presumably) the centre of American agribusiness and perhaps biotechnology, as well?  So it's this US economic sector that would be seeking globalisation (I think). Biotech Industry North Carolina -- abt. 600 bioscience companies that directly employ over 60,000 -- in addition to, 2,000 additional North Carolina industry support companies     http://directory.ncbiotech.org/ -- many world’s largest biotechnology & pharmaceutical facilities are located in North Carolina -- home to:  Bayer (biggest plasma-based factory in world) -- home to:  Wyeth (largest vaccine facility in world) -- home to:  Baxter (largest intravenous solutions facility); -- home to:  Biogen Idec (largest manufacturing biologics facility) -- 2005:  USA 1,415 biotechnology companies, total revenue:  $50.7 billion -- of these 329 publicly held, total market capitalisation $410 billion -- North Carolina:  $3 billion annual revenue -- aiming to build biotechnology workforce at 125,000 in $24 billion industry by 2023 -- global biotech generates $40 billion in sales & expected to grow to $120 billion -- possibly as at 2007 estimate (undated document) - copyright is at 2007    http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-recent/6255 Biotechnology use of biological substances to engineer or manufacture a product or substance use of living systems and organisms -- ie.  use of microorganisms to perform industrial or manufacturing processes applications:  eg. drugs, synthetic hormones, bulk foodstuffs, bioconversion of organic waste     http://www.thefreedictionary.com/biotechnology Thomas Friedman Thomas Loren Friedman b. Minnesota 1953 resides:   Bethesda, Maryland (with wife & family) Jewish:  5 day per week Hebrew school to Bar Mitzvah St Louis Park High School 1968 Israel visit + following high school summers, at kibbutz (Haifa) high school years feature:  celebration of Israel victory Six-Day-War University of Minnesota - 2 years Brandeis University, Mediterranean studies degree (1975) University of Oxford (St Antony's College) -- at Oxford, earns Master Philosophy in Middle Eastern Studies -- Thomas Friedman attended Oxford as:  Marshall Scholar     Oxford University - Oxford England     world's oldest surviving university     Marshall Scholarship     -- post graduate scholarship (USA) for any university in UK     -- along w. Fulbright Scholarship, only broadly available scholarship for UK study     -- considered prestigious scholarship     -- as at current dates:  to 40 from pool of 1,000 selected     -- scholarship was created by the Parliament of UK     -- on passing of:   Marshall Aid Commemoration Act (1953)     -- 'living gift' to USA re post WWII 'Recovery Plan' aka 'Marshall Plan'     --  living memorial to George Marshall     -- inspired by Rhodes Scholarship     -- as well as academic pursuits, aimed to provide insight into British way of life     -- plus strengthen 'Special Relationship' b/w USA & UK         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Scholarship       George Marshall     George Catlett Marshall, Jr.     USA - 1880-1959     scion of an old Virginia family (ie. descended)     Marshall was a Freemason:  by 1941 Grand Master District of Columbia     WWI mentor:  General John Joseph Pershing     -- Marshall posted to HQ of American Expeditionary Force     -- key planner of American ops re defeat Germans Western Front 1918     -- Perishing known for:  training and teaching modern, mechanized warfare             Marshall:     Chief of Staff USA under x2 USA presidents     Secretary of State  - Harry S. Truman     Secretary of Defence - Harry S. Truman     US Army Chief of Staff - WWII     Chief military adviser -  Franklin D. Roosevelt     -- hailed by Winston Churchill for:     -- leadership of the Allied victory in WWII     -- received Nobel Peace Prize in 1953 for the Marshall Plan     -- but US State Dept. developed most of the Marshall Plan (for 'economic recovery')        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Marshall         -- Thomas Friedman married into Bucksbaum family     wife daughter of:  Matthew Bucksbaum (d. 2013)     2011, Matthew Bucksbaum was worth an estimated US$1.2 billion     Matthew Bucksbaum - co-founder General Growth Properties (w. brothers)     formerly US Air Forces -- a cryptographer, New Guinea     BA Economics University of Iowa     family owned chain of x3 grocery stores     1945 borrow $1.2 million for first shopping centre Iowa - expanded into enclosed malls 1960s     own & manage shopping malls throughout USA     120 regional shopping malls in forty states     Revenue     US $3.02 billion     Net income US $994 million     family business struck financial probs. 2008     *value of family fortune SHRANK by 97% since Dec. 2007     2009 Chapter 11 bankruptcy:  largest real estate bankruptcy since 1980     "Unlike most Chapter 11 bankruptcies, existing General Growth stockholders were not wiped out upon the company's exit from bankruptcy" - creation of new company as spinoff: Howard Hughes Corp.     Hughes Corp assets include:  91km squared Las Vegas 'master-planned community, & other shopping centres.     2011-2012, General Growth spun off 30 mall properties into a public company, Rouse Properties, Inc     What?  So it looks like a bankruptcy that wasn't a bankruptcy?     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Growth_Properties     Thomas Friedman -- career as journalist: -- United Press International (London) after obtaining Masters at Oxford -- dispatched to Beirut -- lived Beirut 1979 to 1981 covering Lebanon Civil War -- 1981 - New York Times - redispatchd to Beirut at start 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon -- covered Sabra & Shatila massacre -- won Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting (shared w. anor from WaPo) -- shared win with David K. Shipler - George Polk Award, foreign reporting -- 1984 - New York Times, Jerusalem Bureau Chief to 1988 -- yet another Pulitzer re coverage:  First Palestinian Intifada -- book:  From Beirut to Jerusalem (1989 US National Book Award for Nonfiction) -- George HW Bush admin,  Secretary of State James Baker - covered by Thomas Friedman -- 1992 - election of Bill Clinton:  Friedman becomes White House correspondent for NYT -- 1994 - more on foreign policy & economics - op-ed page NYT as foreign affairs columnist 1995 -- 2002 Friedman gets Pulitzer Prize for Commentary:     -- his supposed clarity of vision on 'worldwide impact of the terrorist threat' -- 2002 - met Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah & encouraged end of Arab-Israeli conflict -- sought normalisation of Arab-Israeli relations in exchange for return of refugees -- plus end to Israel territorial occupations -- Abdullah proposed:  Arab Peace Initiative at the Beirut Summit -- Freidman strong supporter:  Arab Peace Initiative at the Beirut Summit "Several days later, on September 11, all at once Saudi Arabia was transformed from a critic into an object of criticism. It emerged that 15 Saudis were involved in the terror attacks on the United States." "The following February, to soften the criticism, Abdullah invited columnist Thomas L. Friedman of The New York Times to dine with him." "Friedman wrote that he took advantage of the opportunity to tell his host that in one of his recent columns, he had proposed that the 22 members of the Arab League, who were to convene for a summit in Beirut on March 27-28, should offer Israel, in return for its withdrawal to the June 4 lines and the establishment of a Palestinian state, the establishment of full diplomatic and trade relations and the provision of security guarantees." Abdulllah:  "I have drafted a speech along those lines. My thinking was to deliver it before the Arab summit and try to mobilize the entire Arab world behind it. The speech is written, and it is in my desk. But I changed my mind about delivering it when Sharon took the violence, and the oppression, to an unprecedented level." " " ...  prince had authorized [Thomas Friedman] to quote his words. President Bush welcomed the initiative. So did prime minister Ariel Sharon. He sent a message to Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief, and to President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, asking them to arrange a meeting between him and senior Saudis, either openly or in secret. At the end of February, Sharon offered to deliver a speech before the Arab League and present his conditions for peace. The Arab leaders rejected the idea on the grounds that it was just a maneuver to win recognition without giving anything in return. " Haaretz - March 6, 2007 http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/what-arab-initiative-1.214741 GLOBALISATION Thomas Friedman -- 2004 visits Bangalore, India + Dalian, China. -- globalisation discussed as far back as 1999 (The Lexus & the Olive Tree) -- writes follow-up analysis:  The World is Flat (2005) -- argues:  countries must sacrifice degree of economic sovereignty to global institutions -- eg. capital markets + multinational corporations -- referred to as the 'golden straitjacket' -- capital markets = financial markets -- buy / sell:  long-term debt or equity-backed securities -- Friedman an advocate of globalisation -- concerned re lack of independence re US energy -- Saudi's described as 'pushers' (oil producers) to consumer 'addicts' -- pro US energy independence -- ensuing petrodollar depletion PLUS growing population of young -- will coerce authoritarian rulers out of Middle East -- Friedman sees this as best way to:  spread stability & modernisation in autocratic & theocratic region -- would supposedly ease world tensions caused by energy demand -- which is worsened by India and China as emerging economies -- opponents of free trade say:  Friedman does not consider purchasing power of domestic labour as key driver in economic output -- Friedman says when low-skill & low-wage jobs are exported to foreign countries -- advanced, higher-skilled jobs will be 'freed up' and made available for those displaced (by outsourcing) -- Friedman views American immigration laws as too restrictive & damaging to economic output CENSORSHIP Friedman called for the U.S. State Department to --  "shine a spotlight on hate speech wherever it appears" -- said the governmental speech-monitoring should go beyond those who actually advocate violence -- ie should censor those Friedman considers 'excuse-makers' for terrorists (apologists) blaming third-party SERBIA During illegal 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia Friedman:  1999: "Like it or not, we are at war with the Serbian nation ... You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389 too." Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) labelled Freidman's remarks "war-mongering" and "crude race-hatred and war-crime agitation". Norman Solomon 2007, says:  "a tone of sadism could be discerned" in Friedman's article.     Solomon, anti-war campaigner     -- behind 14,000 person e-mail petition to govt of Ecuador     -- urging Ecuador to grant Julian Assange asylum     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Solomon IRAQ Friedman supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq: establishment of a democratic state in the Middle East would force other countries in the region to liberalize and modernize. 2003 - Wall Street Journal article:  re lack of compliance w/ UNSC resolution re Iraq 'WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION' Friedman later rebuked George W. Bush and Tony Blair for "hyping" the evidence Big on the 'converting Iraq to democracy' theme, which reminds me of the Goebbels propaganda swing lyrics: "Listen to the BBC, BBC, BBC, Listen to the BBC, tra-la-la-la, Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? Who wants to make free people free?" Friedman 2004:  dismisses the justification for war based on Iraq's lack of compliance with UN Resolutions --  "The right reason for this war ... was to oust Saddam's regime and partner with the Iraqi people ..." -- refers to Arab Human Development report -- claiming lack of freedom, women's empowerment & modern eduction cause of Arab ills -- Friedman's right reason for war was:  to partner with Arab moderates in long-term strategy of 'dehumiliation' and 'redignification'  "Listen to the BBC, BBC, BBC, Listen to the BBC, tra-la-la-la, Who's preaching world democracy, democracy, democracy? Who wants to make free people free?" ISRAEL --  according to FAIR, Friedman was explicitly endorsing terrorism by Israel against Lebanese and Palestinians -- Glenn Greenwald and professor Noam Chomsky also accused Friedman of endorsing and encouraging terrorism by Israeli forces -- Belen Fernandez:  Friedman's suggestion Israeli forces unaware re allied Lebanese militias carrying out out Sabra and Shatila massacre while under Israeli guard, contradicts other journalist assessments & observers. -- Belen Fernandez: Friedman most worried about successfully maintaining Israel's Jewish ethnocracy and actively opposing a "one-man, one-vote" system of democracy. -- critics on Israel side as well - eg. re suggestion Israel relinquish territory conquered 1967 -- Friedman wrote congressional ovations re Bibi Netanyahu "bought & paid for by Israel lobby" - sparked criticism.  Friedman suggests a more precise term:  "engineered" by Israel lobby. + more entries [I'm getting bored] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman Arab Human Development Report sponsored by:  United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) platform for 'Arab scholars' Democracy & human rights angle. Education system requires transformation. Report calls for the adoption of time-bound affirmative action - re women contends that this is:  imperative to dismantle structures of centuries of discrimination https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Human_Development_Report UNDP f. 1965 to help the economic and political aspects of underdeveloped countries 2013, UNDP’s budget - approximately 5 billion USD -- offices & staff are on ground in 177 countries --  links and coordinates global and national efforts re 'development priorities' of host countries --  supports national democratic transitions --  improving institutional capacity --  educating & advocating re democratic reforms --  facilitates consensus etc. re existing 'democratic institutions' -- works at the macro level to:     -- reform trade     -- encourage debt relief + foreign investment     -- facilitate benefit from globalisation by the poor -- coordinates efforts b/w governments, NGOs, + outside donors -- reduces risk of armed conflicts or disasters NSA surveillance -- Snowden 2013 -- British & American intel agencies NSA targets include:      -- UNDP     -- UN's children's charity Unicef     -- Médecins Sans Frontières     -- Economic Community of West African States   (ECOWAS) -- some criticism re irregularities in finances in North Korea -- mid-2006:  UNDP halted disarmament programs Uganda re human rights abuses -- in forcible disarmament programs carried out by Uganda People's Defence Force -- UNDP criticised [not clear to me why]    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Development_Programme ---------------------- ---------------------- COMMENT Really disliked the Friedman guy, as I was checking this out. Noam Chomsky's likeable and always interesting. Friedman sounds sort of mixed up and all over the place. Gets criticised by everybody. I'm wondering if this is what all White House correspondents are like: ie in the mould of Friedman? Anyway, that's a bit on what was supposed to be about globalisation ... but I went off on a tangent checking everyone out. I've looked at this in one sitting & I'm over it now.   Need a break. -------/\/\/ *I don't get the biotech revenues and estimates at all.  Numbers isn't my thing.  Don't get the comparison between the North Carolina figures & the world figures. *I thought Friedman's formative years, in terms of education and affinity with the state of Israel, was interesting in terms of his later becoming a correspondent re Middle Eastern affairs.  As in, Friedman would surely have a pro-Israel bias, as a result?   *United Nations Development Program, sound like just another way for Western imperialists to control the rest of the world.

FBI Caught Pants-Down - FBI Illegal Practices 1970s - the 'Hacktivists' of Yesteryear

ꕤ FBI Caught Pants-Down FBI Illegal Practices 1970s - the 'Hacktivists' of Yesteryear 1971 FBI Illegal Tactics Program Exposed city:  Media, Pennsylvania, USA Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI ('CCIF') -- leftist activist group USA early 1970s -- breaks into 2-man FBI office Media, Pennsylvania -- theft of over 1,000 classified documents -- documents mailed anonymously to several USA newspapers -- some news outlets refused to publish info Stock rationale: -- related to ongoing 'operations' -- disclosure might 'threaten lives' of agents or informants Complete collection published for first time 1972 -- publisher WIN Magazine -- WIN mag associated w. War Resisters League FBI COINTELPRO op revealed (ie counter intelligence program) EXTENSIVE list of FBI POLITICAL SURVEILLANCE  etc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO Led to: 1.  Church Committee inquiry 2.  FBI cessation of op Noam Chomsky statement re analysis of FBI docs: -- 1% re organised crime (gambling) -- 30% manuals, forms etc -- 40% POLITICAL SURVEILLANCE     - x2 right-wing groups     - x10 immigrants     - x200 left or liberal groups -- 14% draft resistance -- 15% serious crime: murder, rape, robbery etc FBI documents self-incriminating: use of postal worker snitches use of switchboard operator snitches use of like civilian services snitches to spy on: -- black college students -- various non-violent black activist groups Statement to media: EXTRACT "These files will now be studied to determine: one, the nature and extent of surveillance and intimidation carried on by this office of the FBI, particularly against groups and individuals working for a more just, humane and peaceful society. Two, to determine how much of the FBI's efforts are spent on relatively minor crimes by the poor and the powerless against whom they can get a more glamorous conviction rate. Instead of investigating truly serious crimes by those with money and influence which cause great damage to the lives of many people—crimes such as war profiteering, monopolistic practices, institutional racism, organized crime, and the mass distribution of lethal drugs. Finally, three, the extent of illegal practices by the FBI, such as eavesdropping, entrapment, and the use of provocateurs and informers." FBI Fail: -- 200 FBI agents investigation followed -- investigation was closed when 5-year statute of limitations ran out -- unsolved *Members of group revealed IDs recently. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens'_Commission_to_Investigate_the_FBI ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- Don't think anything's changed since the early 1970s. Take a look at UK political policing and New Zealand political policing, also.  It's much the same thing, even today. The leftist activist groups of the early 1970s are a lot like the 'hacktivist' & whistleblower groups of today:  only difference is technology. It looks like the American agencies that serve plutocracy may regard the left as the most dangerous threat to maintenance of power by the American elites ... going by the 1970s. Mainstream Western media has a long history of failing to go to print and of  unreliability as far as whistleblowers are concerned.   So how is this any different to the suppressive techniques of the governments that are maligned as 'repressive regimes' by the US and West, the hypocrites? ꕤ

'The dangerous cult of The Guardian' | Jonathan Cooke

source | @rixstepnews ꕤ SOURCE http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2011-09-28/the-dangerous-cult-of-the-guardian/  [Highlighted / stressed text below - not in original] The dangerous cult of the Guardian 28 September 2011 Counterpunch – 28 September 2011 There could be no better proof of the revolution – care of the internet – occurring in the accessibility of information and informed commentary than the reaction of our mainstream, corporate media. For the first time, Western publics – or at least those who can afford a computer – have a way to bypass the gatekeepers of our democracies. Data our leaders once kept tightly under wraps can now be easily searched for, as can the analyses of those not paid to turn a blind eye to the constant and compelling evidence of Western hypocrisy. Wikileaks, in particular, has rapidly eroded the traditional hierarchical systems of information dissemination. The media – at least the supposedly leftwing component of it – should be cheering on this revolution, if not directly enabling it. And yet, mostly they are trying to co-opt, tame or subvert it. Indeed, progressive broadcasters and writers increasingly use their platforms in the mainstream to discredit and ridicule the harbingers of the new age. A good case study is the Guardian, considered the most leftwing newspaper in Britain and rapidly acquiring cult status in the United States, where many readers tend to assume they are getting access through its pages to unvarnished truth and the full range of critical thinking on the left. Certainly, the Guardian includes some fine reporting and occasionally insightful commentary. Possibly because it is farther from the heart of empire, it is able to provide a partial antidote to the craven coverage of the corporate-owned media in the US. Nonetheless, it would be unwise to believe that the Guardian is therefore a free market in progressive or dissident ideas on the left. In fact, quite the contrary: the paper strictly polices what can be said and who can say it in its pages, for cynical reasons we shall come to. Until recently, it was quite possible for readers to be blissfully unaware that there were interesting or provocative writers and thinkers who were never mentioned in the Guardian. And, before papers had online versions, the Guardian could always blame space constraints as grounds for not including a wider range of voices. That, of course, changed with the rise of the internet. Early on, the Guardian saw the potential, as well as the threat, posed by this revolution. It responded by creating a seemingly free-for-all blog called Comment is Free to harness much of the raw energy unleashed by the internet. It recruited an army of mostly unpaid writers, activists and propagandists on both sides of the Atlantic to help brand itself as the epitome of democratic and pluralistic media. From the start, however, Comment is Free was never quite as free – except in terms of the financial cost to the Guardian – as it appeared. Significant writers on the left, particularly those who were considered “beyond the pale” in the old media landscape, were denied access to this new “democratic” platform. Others, myself included, quickly found there were severe and seemingly inexplicable limits on what could be said on CiF (unrelated to issues of taste or libel). None of this should matter. After all, there are many more places than CiF to publish and gain an audience. All over the web dissident writers are offering alternative analyses of current events, and drawing attention to the significance of information often ignored or sidelined by the corporate media. Rather than relish this competition, or resign itself to the emergence of real media pluralism, however, the Guardian reverted to type. It again became the left’s thought police. This time, however, it could not ensure that the “challenging left” would simply go unheard. The internet rules out the option of silencing by exclusion. So instead, it appears, it is using its pages to smear those writers who, through their own provocative ideas and analyses, suggest the Guardian’s tameness. The Guardian’s discrediting of the “left” – the left being a concept never defined by the paper’s writers – is far from taking place in a fair battle of ideas. Not least the Guardian is backed by the huge resources of its corporate owners. When it attacks dissident writers, they can rarely, if ever, find a platform of equal prominence to defend themselves. And the Guardian has proved itself more than reluctant to allow a proper right of reply in its pages to those it maligns. But also, and most noticeably, it almost never engages with these dissident writers’ ideas. In popular terminology, it prefers to play the man, not the ball. Instead it creates labels, from the merely disparaging to the clearly defamatory, that push these writers and thinkers into the territory of the unconscionable. A typical example of the Guardian’s new strategy was on show this week in an article in the print edition’s comment pages – also available online and a far more prestigious platform than CiF – in which the paper commissioned a socialist writer, Andy Newman, to argue that the Israeli Jewish musician Gilad Atzmon was part of an anti-semitic trend discernible on the left. Jonathan Freedland, the paper’s star columnist and resident obsessive on anti-semitism, tweeted to his followers that the article was “important” because it was “urging the left to confront antisemitism in its ranks”. I have no idea whether Atzmon has expressed anti-semitic views – and I am none the wiser after reading Newman’s piece. As is now typical in this new kind of Guardian character assassination, the article makes no effort to prove that Atzmon is anti-semitic or to show that there is any topical or pressing reason to bring up his presumed character flaw. (In passing, the article made a similar accusation of anti-semitism against Alison Weir of If Americans Knew, and against the Counterpunch website for publishing an article on Israel’s role in organ-trafficking by her.) Atzmon has just published a book on Jewish identity, The Wandering Who?, that has garnered praise from respected figures such as Richard Falk, an emeritus law professor at Princeton, and John Mearsheimer, a distinguished politics professor at Chicago University. But Newman did not critique the book, nor did he quote from it. In fact, he showed no indication that he had read the book or knew anything about its contents. Instead Newman began his piece, after praising Atzmon’s musicianship, with an assumptive reference to his “antisemitic writings”. There followed a few old quotes from Atzmon, long enough to be intriguing but too short and out of context to prove his anti-semitism – except presumably to the Guardian’s thought police and its most deferential readers. The question left in any reasonable person’s mind is why dedicate limited commentary space in the paper to Atzmon? There was no suggestion of a newsworthy angle. And there was no case made to prove that Atzmon is actually anti-semitic. It was simply assumed as a fact. Atzmon, even by his own reckoning, is a maverick figure who has a tendency to infuriate just about everyone with his provocative, and often ambiguous, pronouncements. But why single him out and then suggest that he represents a discernible and depraved trend among the left? Nonetheless, the Guardian was happy to offer its imprimatur to Newman’s defamation of Atzmon, who was described as a conspiracy theorist “dripping with contempt for Jews”, despite an absence of substantiating evidence. Truly worthy of Pravda in its heyday. The Atzmon article appeared on the same day the Guardian carried out a similar hatchet job, this time on Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks. The paper published a book review of Assange’s “unauthorised autobiography” by the Guardian’s investigations editor, David Leigh. That Leigh could be considered a reasonable choice for a review of the book – which he shamelessly pilloried – demonstrates quite how little the Guardian is prepared to abide by elementary principles of ethical journalism. Leigh has his own book on the Guardian’s involvement with Wikileaks and Assange currently battling it out for sales in the bookshops. He is hardly a disinterested party. But also, and more importantly, Leigh is clearly not dispassionate about Assange, any more than the Guardian is. The paper has been waging an all-but-declared war against Wikileaks since the two organizations fell out over their collaboration on publishing Wikileak’s trove of 250,000 classified US embassy cables. The feud, if the paper’s talkbacks are to be believed, has finally begun to test the patience of even some of the paper’s most loyal readers. The low point in Leigh’s role in this saga is divulging in his own book a complex password Assange had created to protect a digital file containing the original and unedited embassy cables. Each was being carefully redacted before publication by several newspapers, including the Guardian. This act of – in the most generous interpretation of Leigh’s behavior – gross stupidity provided the key for every security agency in the world to open the file. Leigh has accused Wikileaks of negligence in allowing a digital copy of the file to be available. Whether true, his own role in the affair is far more inexcusable. Even given his apparent ignorance of the digital world, Leigh is a veteran investigative reporter who must have known that revealing the password was foolhardy in the extreme. Not least, it clearly demonstrated how Assange formulates his passwords, and would provide important clues for hackers trying to open other protected Wikileaks documents. His and the Guardian’s recklessness in disclosing the password was compounded by their negligent decision to contact neither Assange nor Wikileaks before publication of Leigh’s book to check whether the password was still in use. After this shabby episode, one of many from the Guardian in relation to Assange, it might have been assumed that Leigh was considered an inappropriate person to comment in the Guardian on matters related to Wikileaks. Not so. Instead the paper has been promulgating Leigh’s self-interested version of the story and regularly impugning Assange’s character. In a recent editorial, the paper lambasted the Wikileaks founder as an “information absolutist” who was “flawed, volatile and erratic”, arguing that he had chosen to endanger informants named in the US cables by releasing the unredacted cache. However, the paper made no mention either of Leigh’s role in revealing the password or of Wikileaks’ point that, following Leigh’s incompetence, every security agency and hacker in the world had access to the file’s contents. Better, Wikileaks believed, to create a level playing field and allow everyone access to the cables, thereby letting informants know whether they had been named and were in danger. Leigh’s abuse of his position is just one element in a dirty campaign by the Guardian to discredit Assange and, by extension, the Wikileaks project. Some of this clearly reflects a clash of personalities and egos, but it also looks suspiciously like the feud derives from a more profound ideological struggle between the Guardian and Wikilieaks about how information should be controlled a generation hence. The implicit philosophy of Wikileaks is to promote an ever-greater opening up and equalisation of access to information, while the Guardian, following its commercial imperatives, wants to ensure the gatekeepers maintain their control. At least Assange has the prominent Wikileaks website to make sure his own positions and reasons are hard to overlook. Other targets of the Guardian are less fortunate. George Monbiot, widely considered to be the Guardian’s most progressive columnist, has used his slot to attack a disparate group on the “left” who also happen to be harsh critics of the Guardian. In a column in June he accused Ed Herman, a leading US professor of finance and a collaborator on media criticism with Noam Chomsky, and writer David Peterson of being “genocide deniers” over their research into events in Rwanda and Bosnia. The evidence was supposedly to be found in their joint book The Politics of Genocide, published last year, and in an online volume, The Srebrenica Massacre, edited by Herman. Implying that genocide denial was now a serious problem on the left, Monbiot also laid into journalist John Pilger for endorsing the book and a website called Media Lens that dedicates itself to exposing the failings of the corporate media, including the work of the Guardian and Monbiot. Media Lens’ crime was to have argued that Herman and Peterson should be allowed to make their case about Rwanda and Bosnia, rather than be silenced as Monbiot appeared to prefer. Monbiot also ensnared Chomsky in his criticism, castigating him for writing a foreword to one of the books. Chomsky, it should be remembered, is co-author (with Herman) of Manufacturing Consent, a seminal book arguing that it is the role of the corporate media, including liberal media like the Guardian, to distort their readers’ understanding of world events to advance the interests of Western elites. In Chomsky’s view, even journalists like Monbiot are selected by the media for their ability to manufacture public consent for the maintenance of a system of Western political and economic dominance. Possibly as a result of these ideas, Chomsky is a bete noire of the Guardian and its Sunday sister publication, the Observer. He was famously vilified in 2005 by an up-and-coming Guardian feature writer, Emma Brockes – again on the issue of Srebrenica. Brockes’ report so wilfully mischaracterised Chomsky’s views (with quotes she could not substantiate after she apparently taped over her recording of the interview) that the Guardian was forced into a very reluctant “partial apology” under pressure from its readers’ editor. Over Chomsky’s opposition, the article was also erased from its archives. Such scurrilous journalism should have ended a young journalist’s career at the Guardian. But ridiculing Chomsky is standard fare at the paper, and Brockes’ career as celebrity interviewer flourished, both at the Guardian and the New York Times. Nick Cohen, another star columnist, this time at the Observer, found time to mention Chomsky recently, dismissing him and other prominent critical thinkers such as Tariq Ali, the late Harold Pinter, Arundhati Roy and Diana Johnstone as “west-hating”. He blamed liberals and the left for their “Chomskyan self-delusion”, and suggested many were “apologists for atrocities”. Monbiot’s article followed in the same vein. He appeared to have a minimal grasp of the details of Herman and Peterson’s books. Much of his argument that Herman is a “genocide belittler” depends on doubts raised by a variety of experts in the Srebrenica book over the figure of 8,000 reported executions of Bosnian Muslims by Serb forces at Srebrenica. The authors suggest the number is not supported by evidence and might in fact be as low as 800. Whether or not the case made by Herman and his collaborators is convincing was beside the point in Monbiot’s article. He was not interested in exploring their arguments but in creating an intellectual no-go zone from which critical thinkers and researchers were barred – a sacred genocide. And to achieve this end, it was necessary to smear the two writers as genocide deniers and suggest that anyone else on the left who ventured on to the same territory would be similarly stigmatised. Monbiot treatment of Herman and Peterson’s work was so slipshod and cavalier it is hard to believe that he was the one analysing their books. To take just one example, Monbiot somehow appears to be unable to appreciate the careful distinction Herman’s book makes between an “execution” and a “death”, a vital differentiation in evaluating the Srebrenica massacre. In the book, experts question whether all or most of the 8,000 Bosnian Muslims disinterred from graves at Srebrenica were victims of a genocidal plan by the Serbs, or casualties of bitter fighting between the two sides, or even some of them victims of a false-flag operation. As the book points out, a post-mortem can do many things but it cannot discern the identities or intentions of those who did the killing in Srebrenica. The authors do not doubt that a massacre, or massacres, took place at Srebrenica. However, they believe we should not accept on trust that this was a genocide (a term defined very specifically in international law), or refuse to consider that the numbers may have been inflated to fit a political agenda. This is not an idle or contrarian argument. As they make clear in their books, piecing together what really happened in Rwanda and Bosnia is vital if we are not to be duped by Western leaders into yet more humanitarian interventions whose goals are far from those claimed. The fact that Monbiot discredited Herman and Peterson at a time when the Guardian’s reporting was largely cheering on the latest humanitarian intervention, in Libya, was all the more richly ironic. So why do the Guardian and its writers publish these propaganda articles parading as moral concern about the supposedly degenerate values of the “left”? And why, if the left is in such a debased state, can the Guardian’s stable of talented writers not take on their opponents’ ideas without resorting to strawman arguments, misdirection and smears. The writers, thinkers and activists targeted by the Guardian, though all of the left, represent starkly different trends and approaches – and some of them would doubtless vehemently oppose the opinions of others on the list. But they all share a talent for testing the bounds of permissible thought in creative ways that challenge and undermine established truths and what I have termed elsewhere the “climate of assumptions” the Guardian has helped to create and sustain. It hardly matters whether all or some of these critical thinkers are right. The danger they pose to the Guardian is in arguing convincingly that the way the world is presented to us is not the way it really is. Their very defiance, faced with the weight of a manufactured consensus, threatens to empower us, the reader, to look outside the restrictive confines of media orthodoxy. The Guardian, like other mainstream media, is heavily invested – both financially and ideologically – in supporting the current global order. It was once able to exclude and now, in the internet age, must vilify those elements of the left whose ideas risk questioning a system of corporate power and control of which the Guardian is a key institution. The paper’s role, like that of its rightwing cousins, is to limit the imaginative horizons of readers. While there is just enough leftwing debate to make readers believe their paper is pluralistic, the kind of radical perspectives needed to question the very foundations on which the system of Western dominance rests is either unavailable or is ridiculed. Reading the Guardian, it is possible to believe that one of the biggest problems facing our societies – comparable to our compromised political elites, corrupt police authorities, and depraved financial system – is an array of mainly isolated dissidents and intellectuals on the left. Is Atzmon and his presumed anti-semitism more significant than AIPAC? Is Herman more of a danger than the military-industrial corporations killing millions of people around the globe? And is Assange more of a menace to the planet’s future than US President Barack Obama? Reading the Guardian, you might well think so. SOURCE http://www.jonathan-cook.net/2011-09-28/the-dangerous-cult-of-the-guardian/ ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- Worthwhile keeping the above observations in mind when checking out The Guardian opinion pieces and articles regarding Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. On Forthcoming Opinion Piece 18 August 2015 23:00 BST https://justice4assange.com/On-forthcoming-opinion-piece.html 'Right of Reply' Denied ꕤ