Dec 5, 2016
Dec 4, 2016
Dec 3, 2016
Dec 2, 2016
Nov 29, 2016
No one outside of a few obsessed cranks would’ve noticed it if the Washington Post hadn’t given it front page prominence last week: a formerly obscure web site, propornot.com, which purports to identify a “Russian active measures” campaign with some very specific goals in mind As Post “reporter” Craig Timberg put it:
“The flood of ‘fake news’ this election season got support from a sophisticated Russian propaganda campaign that created and spread misleading articles online with the goal of punishing Democrat Hillary Clinton, helping Republican Donald Trump and undermining faith in American democracy, say independent researchers who tracked the operation.”
While the Post piece doesn’t link directly to the propornot site – because doing so would’ve exposed its laughably amateurish “methodology” for all to see – Timberg does mention their list of online Boris Badenovs, including not only Antiwar.com but also the Drudge Report, WikiLeaks, David Stockman’s Contra Corner, the Ron Paul Institute, LewRockwell.com, Counterpunch, Zero Hedge, Naked Capitalism, Truthdig, Truth-out, and a host of others. These sites, according to the Post, not only promoted a barrage of “fake news” with the aim of defeating Mrs. Clinton, but they did so at the behest of a “centrally-directed” (per propornot) intelligence operation undertaken by the Russians. So what did this “fake news” consist of? Timberg “reports”:
“Russia’s increasingly sophisticated propaganda machinery – including thousands of botnets, teams of paid human ‘trolls,’ and networks of websites and social-media accounts – echoed and amplified right-wing sites across the Internet as they portrayed Clinton as a criminal hiding potentially fatal health problems and preparing to hand control of the nation to a shadowy cabal of global financiers. The effort also sought to heighten the appearance of international tensions and promote fear of looming hostilities with nuclear-armed Russia.”
Never mind that it was Hillary Clinton herself who heightened international tensions by threatening military retaliation against the Russians for supposedly unleashing via WikiLeaks a flood of embarrassing emails. In a speech touted as outlining her foreign policy platform, she railed:
“You’ve seen reports. Russia’s hacked into a lot of things. China’s hacked into a lot of things. Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we’ve got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us.
“As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack. We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses.”
According to the “experts” at propornot – granted anonymity by Timberg due to alleged fear of “Russian hackers” – to so much as note this clear threat is to brand oneself as a “Russian agent of influence.”
And what about Mrs. Clinton’s health problems – was reporting on this driven by Russian spies embedded in the alternative media? Or was it occasioned by this video, which saw her falling to the ground after leaving the 9/11 ceremony early? Are the folks at propornot and their fans at the Washington Post saying the amateur videographer who took that footage is a Russian secret agent? Were the television networks and other outlets that showed the footage “useful idiots,” to employ a favorite cold war smear revived by propornot? Given their criteria for labeling people agents of the Kremlin, the answer to these questions has to be yes – and now we are falling down the rabbit hole, in a free-fall descent into lunacy.
Propornot’s “criteria” for inclusion on their blacklist is actually an ideological litmus test: if you hold certain views, you’re in the pay of the Kremlin, or else an “unwitting agent” – as former CIA head Mike Morell said of Trump. If you say anything at all positive about Russia or Putin – or a long list of entities, like China or “radical political parties in the US or Europe” (does this include the GOP?) – it’s a dead giveaway. We’re told to “investigate this by searching for mentions of, for example, ‘russia’, on their site by Googling for ‘site:whateversite.com Russia’, and seeing what comes up.”
If only Sherlock Holmes had had Google at his disposal, those detective stories would’ve been a lot shorter!
The propornot site is filled with complex graphs, and the text is riddled with “scientific”-sounding phrases, but when you get right down to it their “methodology” boils down to this: if you don’t fit within a very narrow range of allowable opinion, either falling off the left edge or the right edge, you’re either a paid Russian troll or else you’re being “manipulated” by forces you don’t understand and don’t want to understand.
Did you cheer on Brexit? You’re Putin’s pawn!
Are you worried about “World War III, nuclear devastation, etc.” instead of being content in the knowledge that their preferred policy – unmitigated hostility toward Russia — would “just result in a Cold War 2 and Russia’s eventual peaceful defeat, like the last time”? Well, then, clearly you’re either on Putin’s payroll, or else you’d like to be.
Other proscribed opinions include: “gold standard nuttery and attacks on the US dollar,” believing “the mainstream media can’t be trusted,” and “anti-‘globalism.’” And to underscore their complete lack of self-awareness, we’re told that additional warning signs of Putinism are “hyperbolic alarmism” and “generally ridiculous over-the-top assertions.”
In their world, it isn’t hyperbolic alarmism to point to ramshackle Russia, with a GDP equal to Spain’s and a declining military budget that pales before our own, as an existential threat to the West. And if you’re a reporter for the Washington Post, which has destroyed what reputation it had by effectively becoming the house organ of the Democratic National Committee, generally ridiculous overt-the-top assertions, such as those proffered by propornot, are “news.”
The Post piece also cites an article published on the “War On The Rocks” web site (which is exactly what it sounds like). The authors, a triumvirate of neocons, avers that they’ve been “tracking” “Russian propaganda” efforts since 2014, and they’ve concluded that the Grand Goal of the Russkies is to “Erode trust between citizens and elected officials and democratic institutions” – as if this process isn’t occurring naturally due to the depredations of a corrupt and arrogant political class.
Another insidious theme of Russian “active measures” as identified by these geniuses is “Stoking fears over the national debt, attacking institutions such as the Federal Reserve, and attempts to discredit Western financial experts and business leaders.” So we mustn’t talk about the national debt – because to do so brands one as a cog in Putin’s propaganda machine. Gee, based on these criteria, we can only conclude that every vaguely conservative politician running for office in the last decade or so is part of the Vast Russian Conspiracy, not to mention numerous economists.
And that’s not all – not by a long shot. Here’s a list of more Forbidden Topics we’re not supposed to discuss, except maybe in whispers in the privacy of our own homes: “Police brutality, racial tensions, protests, anti-government standoffs, online privacy concerns, and alleged government misconduct are all emphasized [by the Vast Russian Conspiracists – ed.] to magnify their scale and leveraged to undermine the fabric of society.” After all, Russia Today is “emphasizing” these issues – so mum’s the word!
Nov 28, 2016
by Jeff Berwick
Castro is dead, but he achieved his purpose, which was to aggravate the Cold War, provide a test case for communism and frighten people about incipient nuclear missile exchanges.
His passing marks the end of the first phase of the Cold War. Now it is very obvious that a second phase is being prepared.
Tensions between Russia and the US are being continually heightened… and no, they are still ongoing even with the election of Trump who, under the guidance of Henry “War Criminal” Kissinger, has pledged his full support for NATO while Putin has replied that he will crush NATO.
These tensions are mainly initiated by the US and Britain. In other words it is the Anglosphere that has been responsible for so many wars including the World Wars.
Castro provides us with an example of how these trends – which we regularly analyze – work.
With an academic history that included intensive Jesuit schooling and later on, the backing of the US military and intel community, Castro was positioned to do what he did (take over Cuba) and he was generously funded as well.
Castro was raised up on purpose. Either that or we are to think that the CIA and other intel agencies drastically misjudged Castro and believed him to be a freedom fighter when he was actually a dictator-in-waiting who would preside over an increasingly totalitarian system of government. Are they really so naïve?
When the “Russian Revolution” was raging, author G. Edward Griffin points out that Wall Street tycoons journeyed to what would become the Soviet Union to learn where they might direct their cash.
They were disguised as Red Cross workers and all of their resources went to the “Red” – communists – Russians who won the war with Wall Street’s help.
This is always the way it works in the West. The banking controllers use a Hegelian dialectic to control the world and generate additional globalism.
In other words, they need an enemy to provide the justification for additional international authoritarianism. Castro was probably groomed from a child to fulfill this role.
He was raised in wealthy circumstances in Cuba and attended Jesuit schools – where no doubt his preparation as a world-renowned rebel commenced.
He was probably promised control of Cuba if he cooperated. Tall, energetic and reportedly a bully who liked to fight, he was surely chosen for his role early on – as those who build our false history usually identify and groom their future figureheads when they are young.
Supposedly Castro developed an attraction for socialist politics that resulted in his participation in revolutionary movements. More likely – as with Clinton and Obama – he was provided with a persona that he gradually realized.
Here’s his background from Wikipedia:
Aged six, Castro was sent to live with his teacher in Santiago de Cuba, before being baptized into the Roman Catholic Church at the age of eight. Being baptized enabled Castro to attend the La Salle boarding school in Santiago, where he regularly misbehaved, so he was sent to the privately funded, Jesuit-run Dolores School in Santiago.
In 1945 he transferred to the more prestigious Jesuit-run El Colegio de Belén in Havana. Although Castro took an interest in history, geography and debating at Belén, he did not excel academically, instead devoting much of his time to playing sport.
First the Jesuits got their hands on him and then of course DC itself. And on it goes …
We’re supposed to believe US officials were “shocked” when Castro turned out to be a communist rather than a corporatist.
We’re supposed to be surprised that the 600-plus assassination attempts “failed.”
We’re supposed to be indignant that Castro’s reign – not far away from one of the epicenters of world power in Washington DC – lasted well over half-a-century.
The shadowy globalists that occupy the topmost rung of our world surely wanted him in power. He brought the Cold War very close to the American people and provided an ongoing irritation combined with a boogeyman persona.
It was impossible to ignore the provocation of the USSR while Castro lived in Havana and regularly deepened his relationships with the communist world.
Castro served one more purpose as well. As he aged while the Cold War suspiciously diminished and then suddenly ended, his image was gradually reshaped.
Instead of a brutal dictator, he was made out to be a man who wanted the best for his people and had simply decided on a misguided methodology.
In other words, his “heart was in the right place.” Thus, Castro was of use one last time to justify the practice of authoritarian politics. We can see this in the wake of his death (whenever he really died …).